Appeal No. 2004-0933
Application 09/256,680
Group I, it is not necessary to remand the application for
consideration of the dependent claims in Groups II and III.
The claims are not anticipated
Claim 1 is taken as representative of Group I. We address
the limitations one at a time.
The examiner finds that "Pongracz discloses the invention
including a method and apparatus for identifying back up files
for restoring a file in a transactional system (abstract,
lines 1-2 et seq)" (FR2).
Appellants argue that the claimed invention is directed
towards a method for finding application components installed on
a computer system for use in a backup system, not identifying
backup files that will be used to restore a file (Br4).
We do not find where the examiner addresses this argument.
The examiner has not explained how identifying backup files is
the same thing as "finding application components installed on a
computer system for use in a backup system" in the preamble of
claim 1, i.e., finding application components to be backed up is
not seen to be the same as identifying backup files. Backup
files are not application components and, even if the backup
files are backups of application components, the backup files are
not necessarily installed on computer system but could be stored.
- 4 -4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007