Appeal 2007-1241
Application 09/794,486
key used to encrypt the data (col. 6, ll. 51-54; Fig.3, 304), as noted by the
Examiner (Answer 15).
Appellant has not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of dependent claims 17-20. 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 obvious
over Bacha and Chapman for the same reasons discussed supra with respect
to claim 16.
Lastly, regarding the rejection of independent claim 21 and its
dependent claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Bacha in view of Serbinis and further in view of Ballantyne, Appellant
initially argues that claim 21 “is allowable for similar reasons to Claims 1,
10 and 16” (Br. 24). As discussed above, we see no deficiencies with
respect to the rejections of those claims.
Appellant additionally argues that “[t]he Examiner cites Bacha et al.
for the alleged anticipation of requesting ‘print-out from the second storage
computer.’” However, the Examiner need only rely on Bacha for the
request, generally, since the Examiner relied upon Ballantyne for teaching
requests specifically for printing documents (Answer 20). Therefore, to the
extent this argument asserts that the combined references fail to teach
requesting and generating a print-out of user data from the depository, we
disagree. We find that Ballantyne clearly teaches a user requesting a print-
out that is subsequently generated and delivered (col. 8, ll. 56-60).
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013