Appeal 2007-1241
Application 09/794,486
98 operating system” (col. 12, ll. 23-39). It is well known in the art that
computers operating Microsoft Windows send, receive, use and store data
identified using filenames. Therefore, the documents disclosed by Bacha
must include “title information” in the form of a filename in order to be
usable by the Microsoft Windows computer systems.
Regarding the rejection of dependent claim 6, Appellant argues that
“the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 6 based on col. 3, lines 64-67 of Bacha et
al. fails to adequately anticipate” since it doesn’t specify when the “read”
privilege is applied (Br. 17). Claim 6 recites “identifying said stored user
data as read-only after said data has been encrypted”. As noted by
Appellant, the Examiner relies upon column 3, lines 64-67 of Bacha
(Answer 6), which describes a prior art system similar to Bacha’s preferred
embodiment, and states that “[a]s the owner of the deposited documents …
the document originator may assign a business partner 106 to have a ‘read’
privilege” (emphasis added)(col. 3, ll. 60-64). Bacha discloses that the
preferred embodiment also allows the user to assign levels of access to
documents (col. 5, ll. 39-40). The above cited sections make it clear that the
documents have already been deposited by the time the read-only access is
designated. Since the documents are encrypted prior to being deposited (col.
6, ll. 55-57), the “read” privilege is assigned after encryption. Furthermore,
we note that Bacha teaches modifying the access control list of a document
already stored in the repository (col. 10, ll. 46-50).
Regarding the rejection of dependent claim 8, Appellant argues that
the communication between the user computing device and the server does
not “using the Internet” and that Bacha “specifically teaches a method of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013