Appeal 2007-1240
Application 09/733,596
transferring the validated data file to the primary
server;
storing the data files in the primary server.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Braddy 6,304,967 Oct. 16, 2001
Dole 6,634,008 Oct. 14, 2003
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious
over Dole in view of Braddy.
Appellant contends that the claimed subject matter would not have
been obvious, in that (1) neither Dole nor Braddy teaches validation of a
data file, and communication of the results thereof to a user, before release
of the file to a primary server; (2) neither Dole nor Braddy teaches a primary
network having a primary server, in combination with a plurality of
secondary networks each having at least one secondary server. The
Examiner contends that Dole does teach such validation, as well as the
claimed primary and secondary networks.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in
this decision. Arguments that Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).2
2 Appellant has not presented any substantive arguments directed separately
to the patentability of the dependent claims or related claims in each group,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013