Appeal No. 2004-1465
Application No. 09/316,752
Shannon teaches that the backup request could come from the
server, we agree with appellants that Shannon clearly discloses
that the backup request is made by the client computer. The
portions of Shannon specifically cited by the examiner make no
suggestion that the backup request comes from the server. The
mere fact that Shannon suggests that modifications can be made to
the disclosed invention does not lead to making the backup
request by the server when Shannon specifically discloses that
the backup request is to be made by the client computer. Whether
there is better prior art available which might support a
rejection of these claims we cannot say. All we can say is that
Shannon does not provide the evidentiary record necessary to
support the examiner’s rejection.
We now consider the rejection of claims 32 and 33 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the disclosure of
Carr. The examiner has indicated how she finds the invention of
these claims to be anticipated by Carr (action mailed March 27,
2003, pages 5-6, incorporated into answer at page 3). Since
appellants have grouped these claims together (brief, page 5), we
will consider independent claim 32 as the representative claim
for this group. With respect to representative claim 32,
appellants argue that Carr fails to disclose the step of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007