Appeal 2007-1241
Application 09/794,486
facts.” (Br. 19). We further note that the Examiner presented numerous
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), combining various references with
Bacha, and Appellant has failed to make any substantive arguments relating
to the content of the various references or the combinability of the references
with each other.
Regarding the rejection of dependent claims 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Bacha in view of Ballantyne, claim 7 merely
recites “said transmitted user data comprises at least one graphic image file”,
Appellant argues that Bacha and Ballantyne are non-analogous art.
Appellant specifically argues that “the teaching of Ballantyne et al. is
incongruous with Bacha et al.” (Br. 19). The Examiner argues that Bacha
relates to the field of electronic data storage and provides a repository for
any type of data (Answer 26). The Examiner also argues that Ballantyne
teaches the “master library”, which is disclosed as a “data depository for …
text, graphics, still images, full motion video, and sound/audio information”
(col. 4, ll. 4-6).
We find that Bacha relates to a generic data storage system, and refers
generally to storage of “documents” (col. 5, ll. 36-37). One of ordinary skill
in the art would have realized that images would be an acceptable type of
document or, alternatively, be included in documents. Ballantyne also
relates to data storage, and teaches storage of a specific type of data,
including images, such as those recited in claim 7, in a “data depository”.
Additionally, we note that both Bacha (col. 6, ll. 55-57) and Ballantyne (col.
16, ll. 16-18) relate to encryption of stored personal data. Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner that Bacha and Ballantyne are analogous art, since
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013