Appeal 2006-2685
Application 09/801,614
of the compromised data and reloading the backup file or the compromised
data may be transmitted with an error message.
Thus, the disclosures of Schneck and Groshon fall short of teaching or
suggesting that the requested data is destroyed and a backup file is reloaded
for each destroyed file if the request for data is unauthorized. We also note
that the other independent claims require similar determination and
destruction of unauthorized requests and reloading of the backup files which
are neither taught nor suggested by the proposed combination of the
references. Accordingly, as the Examiner has failed to set forth a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to any of the independent claims, we
cannot sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 5, 7, 10, 14, 17, 21,
25, and 27, nor of their dependent claims 4, 13, 20, 24, and 30, over Schneck
and Groshon.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 17, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, and 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
tdl/ce
International Business Machines Corporation
Intellectual Property Law Department
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013