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 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013