Appeal 2007-1241
Application 09/794,486
Regarding the rejection of dependent claim 2, Appellant apparently
argues that the transmitted user data in Bacha is not in the form of a “data
file” (Br. 15). The Examiner points to column 4, lines 44-45 of Bacha
(Answer 6), which states “[t]his system relies on ... modern transmission
technology … that electronic transmission of documents and other data
will arrive intact and error free” (emphasis added) (col. 4, ll. 42-45). We
find that the language used by Bacha “documents and other data” makes it
clear that the documents disclosed throughout Bacha are, in fact, data files.
Additionally, we note that Bacha teaches implementing the invention on a
“general purpose computer system” such as a computer running “Microsoft
Windows 98 operating system” (col. 12, ll. 23-39). It is notoriously well
known in the art that computers running Microsoft Windows operating
systems send, receive, use and store data in the form of data files.
Regarding the rejection of dependent claim 3, Appellant argues that
the transmitted user data in Bacha does not contain “title information” (Br.
16). The Examiner points to column 3, lines 23-25 (Answer 6), which
teaches providing a search authority that allows users to search for
documents based on, among other things, “document identity”. We disagree
with Appellant and find that Bacha does teach information pertaining to
identification of remotely stored data. In order for the search authority to
locate documents based on a “document identity”, the documents must be
identifiable with that identity. We find that “document identity” falls well
within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “title information”.
Additionally, Bacha teaches implementing the invention on a “general
purpose computer system” such as a computer running “Microsoft Windows
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013