Appeal 2007-1241
Application 09/794,486
Serbinis US 6,584,466 B1 Jun. 24, 2003
(filed Apr. 7, 1999)
Bacha US 6,839,843 B1 Jan. 4, 2005
(filed Dec. 10, 1999)
Claims 1-4, 6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Bacha. Claims 5, 7, 9-13 and 15-23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner relies upon
Bacha alone for claim 5. Bacha is combined with Ballantyne for claims 7
and 9. Bacha is combined with Chapman and Ballantyne for claims 10-13
and 15. Bacha is combined with Chapman for claims 16-20, and is
combined with Serbinis and Ballantyne for claims 21-23.
Rather than repeat the positions of the Appellant and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief and Reply Brief for the Appellant’s positions,
and to the Answer for the Examiner’s positions.
OPINION
Regarding the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Bacha, Appellant argues that Bacha
discloses “a system and method where the user must have a vault application
which serves to encrypt data before it is transmitted for storage” (Br. 14) and
that claim 1 recites a method where “encryption of the data occurs at the
remote server” (Br. 14). The Examiner points to column 6, lines 29-30 as
anticipating “encrypting the transmitted user data at said server” (Answer 4).
Both Appellant and the Examiner appear to agree that the document
encryption occurs in the user’s vault (Br. 15; Answer 22).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013