Appeal 2007-1241
Application 09/794,486
they are both directed to systems for encrypted storage of user data.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to use a specific data type, such as graphic
image files taught by Ballantyne, inclusive of the generically disclosed
“documents” taught by Bacha.
Regarding the rejection of dependent claim 9, which merely recites
“at least a portion of said communications link includes a wireless
communication channel”, the Examiner acknowledges that Bacha fails to
specifically disclose use of a wireless network (Answer 9). The Examiner
relies upon Ballantyne and points to column 16, lines 44-47 (Answer 9),
which discloses distribution of various data types via several network types,
including wireless networks. Appellant argues that “[t]he Examiner’s
assertion misses the mark” because “the cited language is directed toward
wireless means for distributing compressed video … and not for … secure
document storage” (Br. 21). Ballantyne explicitly discloses using wireless
networks as an alternative to other network types for transmitting data (col.
16, ll. 44-49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made that wireless networks, or any of the
other networks taught by Ballantyne would have been usable to transmit any
kind of data, and more specifically, to submit documents to the document
repository system of Bacha via the alternative communication medium.
Regarding the rejection of independent claim 10 and claims 11-13 and
15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bacha in view of
Chapman and further in view of Ballantyne, Appellant argues as to claim 10
that “decryption takes place at the document originator’s vault and not the
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013