Appeal 2006-2685
Application 09/801,614
1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Furthermore, the conclusion that the claimed subject
matter is prima facie obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown by
some objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge generally available
to one of ordinary skill in the art that would have led that individual to
combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598
(Fed. Cir. 1988).
After reviewing Groshon, we agree with Appellants that the reference
teaches against modifying Schneck to destroy the requested data in case of
unauthorized intrusion as Groshon provides for circumstances in which the
requested data is transmitted even if it is determined to have been
compromised (col. 6, ll. 26-37). Although Groshon teaches storing backup
Web pages (col. 4, l. 64-col. 5, l. 3), the backup files are not used for
substituting the compromised files that are destroyed. Instead, the backup is
used for validation by comparing a Web page prior to its transmission with
the backup copy (col. 5, ll. 3-9) or transmission in place of the page whose
signature is not identical to a controlled signature (col. 6, ll. 28-32).
However, if no backup is available, Groshon sends the compromised data
along with a message notifying the recipient that the data is suspect (col. 6,
ll. 32-37). Therefore, Groshon is concerned with the authenticity of the data,
and not whether the request is authorized, for keeping or destroying the
requested data. Even when the data is determined to be compromised,
Groshon may transmit the backup file if a backup exists or transmit the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013