Appeal 2007-1241
Application 09/794,486
the disclosures of Bacha and Ballantyne would have immediately recognized
the advantages of and been motivated to allow users to print documents
stored in the document repository. For example, and as noted by the
Examiner (Answer 12), this would have allowed the users to review the
printed documents without being connected to the document repository
system, as well as provided the users with physical back-up copies of the
documents.
Regarding Appellant’s argument regarding motivation to combine,
that permitting a document to be printed circumvents and undermines the
security techniques taught by Bacha (Br. 22), we disagree. Both Bacha (col.
6, ll. 55-57) and Ballantyne (col. 16, ll. 16-18) encrypt the stored personal
data. The data must be decrypted prior to printing, and it can only be
decrypted by authorized parties in both Bacha (col. 8, ll. 13-17) and
Ballantyne (col. 8, ll. 3-5). Therefore, permitting printing of documents as
taught by Ballantyne will not circumvent or undermine the security
techniques taught by Bacha, since the stored data will remain encrypted until
a print-out is requested, and will not be decrypted until the requestor is
authenticated and authorized.
Appellant has not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of dependent claims 11-13 and 15. In the
absence of a separate argument with respect to the dependent claims, those
claims stand or fall with the representative independent claim. See Young,
927 F.2d at 590, 18 USPQ2d at 1091. See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims as being
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013