Appeal No. 2004-1465
Application No. 09/316,752
Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir.), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L.
Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220
USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984).
The examiner has indicated how she finds the invention of
these claims to be anticipated by Shannon (action mailed March
27, 2003, pages 4-5, incorporated into answer at page 3). Since
appellants have grouped these claims together (brief, page 5), we
will consider independent claim 1 as the representative claim for
this group. With respect to representative claim 1, appellants
argue that Shannon fails to show the second step of claim 1, that
is, that the server requests the backup image from the client
computer. Appellants assert that the request for transfer of
files in Shannon comes from the client computer and not from the
server as claimed (brief, pages 7-11). The examiner disagrees
with appellants’ position and responds that Shannon does not
teach against the concept of a server requesting the backup image
(answer, pages 4-5).
We will not sustain the examiner’s anticipation rejection
of claims 1-4, 17-20 and 30 based on Shannon. Despite the
examiner’s attempts to find support for the proposition that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007