Appeal 2007-1241
Application 09/794,486
data storage performed over a ‘closed network’ which is contrary to using
the Internet” (Br. 17-18). The Examiner relies on column 1, lines 30-31
(Answer 7), a portion of the background essentially noting that the Internet
is a known open network. The Examiner supplements this with a citation to
column 4, lines 40-45 (Answer 26). Initially, we disagree with Appellant
that Bacha’s disclosure of a closed network is “contrary to using the
Internet”. The portion of Bacha relied upon by Appellant (col. 5, ll. 49-52)
merely states that the application server and the database repository may be
connected via a closed network. The relevant communication link is the one
between the user and the document repository system, not the link between
the application server and the database repository, which are both
components of the document repository system (col. 5, ll. 47-49). We agree
with the Examiner, since Bacha’s teaching that the document repository
system “provides an enhanced web server environment” (col 4., ll. 39-41)
that “relies on the modern transmission technology described in the
Background of the Invention” (col 4, ll. 42-45) as “the Internet and other
open networks” (col 1., ll. 29-30) may be accessed “though the client’s web
browser” (col. 4, ll. 48-50), adequately teaches that the communication link
between the client and the document repository system includes the Internet.
Appellant has not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of dependent claim 4, rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Bacha, or dependent claim 5, rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bacha alone. In the absence
of separate arguments with respect to these dependent claims, these claims
stand or fall with their representative independent claim. See In re Young,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013