Appeal No. 2004-1465
Application No. 09/316,752
identifying a client processing system or the step of requesting
a previously created backup image (brief, pages 11-13). The
examiner responds that Carr maintains a backup copy of the client
database by applying the same changes to a backup database on a
remotely located system (answer, pages 5-6).
We will not sustain the examiner’s anticipation rejection
of claims 32 and 33 based on Carr. We agree with appellants that
Carr teaches a data backup system in which the client computers
control the transfer of data to the server. Since the client
computers control the transfer of data in Carr, there is no need
to identify a client data processing system from which a backup
image is to be retrieved, or a need to request the previously
created backup image from the client computer. The requesting
step in claim 32 must originate from outside the client computer.
Therefore, we agree with appellants that Carr cannot meet the
limitations recited in claim 32. Once again, whether there is
better prior art available which might support a rejection of
these claims we cannot say. All we can say is that Carr does not
provide the evidentiary record necessary to support the
examiner’s rejection.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007