Appeal 2006-2685
Application 09/801,614
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 17, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, and 30 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schneck in
view of Groshon.
The Examiner relies on Schneck for disclosing the claimed storage
and protection of data against unauthorized intrusions and on Groshon for
teaching storage of backup files for each data file wherein the backup files
are inaccessible to the users (Answer 3-4). The reason for such combination
is stated by the Examiner as the desire for making un-compromised copies
available as needed (Answer 4). Appellants argue that Schneck fails to teach
storing backup files as well as reloading a backup file for each destroyed file
(Br. 5). Appellants further assert that the possibility of transmitting and
using compromised and suspect data in Groshon actually teaches away from
the proposed combination and would not result in substituting the stored
backup files for the files that are destroyed after unauthorized intrusion is
determined, as recited in the claims (Br. 5-6). Thus, the issue before this
panel is whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
to properly combine Schneck and Groshon and the combination discloses all
the claimed features.
OPINION
As a general proposition, in rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
the Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955,
1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013