Appeal 2007-1241
Application 09/794,486
Therefore, the disagreement between Appellant and the Examiner is
essentially regarding the location of the user’s vault application. Appellant
argues that a “user who wishes to store [a] document must have a ‘vault
application’ at their own computer which allows them to encrypt and
package the data before it is sent for storage” (Br. 13) and equates the
application server vault to “the remote server” (Br. 15). The Examiner
asserts that the vault controller and the application server, as parts of the
document repository system, “may be on the same machine” and equates
the document repository system to “the server/remote server" (Answer 22).
We disagree that the portion of Bacha cited by the Examiner (col. 5,
ll. 47-57), which merely states that the application server may be on the
same machine as the database it administers, adequately supports the
assertion that the user’s vault is located at the server. However, we find that
Bacha does, in fact, teach that the user’s vault is located remotely from the
user, at the server, as discussed below.
We note that Bacha discloses a similar prior art system, shown in
Figure 1, which is described as a system where “[a] document originator 100
can deposit documents via its connection 102 with a remote document
repository service 104, such as a database, administered by a third party”
(emphasis added)(col. 3, ll. 58-60). Later, Bacha describes his invention,
shown in Figure 2, by stating “[a]s in the system of FIG. 1, in the [preferred
embodiment], a document originator 200 can deposit documents via its
connection 202 with a document repository service 204” (emphasis
added)(col. 5, ll. 36-38). Bacha additionally teaches that “[e]ach vault on a
server has a unique encryption key”(emphasis added)(col. 4, ll. 52-53).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013