Appeal 2007-1241
Application 09/794,486
remote second computer” (Br. 22). We disagree for the reasons discussed
supra with respect to claim 1, primarily because the document originator’s
vault, where encryption/decryption of the deposited documents takes place,
is located at the second computer.
Appellant also argues that “there is no suggestion to combine the
teachings of Ballantyne et al. and Bacha et al.” and that “Ballantyne et al.’s
principal of permitting a document to be printed freely by a requestor
completely circumvents and undermines the security techniques which form
the foundation of Bacha et al.’s system and method.” (Br. 22). The
Examiner states that a user would be motivated to combine Bacha and
Ballantyne “to print out the user data, which is forwarded to the user for
review” (Answer 12) and that printing data into user readable form and
mailing the print-outs to the user is well-known in the art (Answer 23).
Initially, we note that Appellant has presented no arguments directed
to the teachings or combinability of the secondary reference Chapman with
Bacha. Accordingly, Appellant has waived any such arguments, and the
combinability and teachings of Chapman will not be addressed here.
As discussed supra with respect to claim 7, we find that Bacha relates
to a generic data storage system, and refers generally to storage of
“documents” (col. 5, ll. 36-37). Ballantyne also relates to data storage, and
teaches storage of a specific type of data, including images, 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.
Ballantyne teaches user requested printing of user specific data and mailing
the print-outs to a user. One of ordinary skill in the art, when made aware of
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013