Appeal 2007-1241
Application 09/794,486
obvious over Bacha in view of Chapman and Ballantyne for the same
reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 10.
Turning to the rejection of independent claim 16 and claims 17-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bacha in view of
Chapman, Appellant’s arguments as to claim 10 substantially mirror those
presented with respect to claim 1. Appellant again argues that Bacha
“teaches decryption at the document originator’s vault (after transmission of
the encrypted document from the remote server)” (Br. 23). 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 claim 16 is additionally allowable “for the
reason that it recites a specific technique of storing the
encryption/decryption key at the remote server, where the key can be
identified by a user password” (Br. 23). The Examiner relies upon Bacha for
teaching the storage of an encryption/decryption key at the remote server
and Chapman for teaching that the key is identifiable by receipt of a user-
provided password (Answer 15). We also 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. Appellant has also failed to present substantive
arguments directed to storing the encryption/decryption key at the remote
server, merely asserting this as a reason why claim 16 should be allowed
(Br. 23). Nonetheless, Bacha teaches storing, at the server, the encryption
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013