Ex Parte Bruce et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 17, 201311263224 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte TIMOTHY R. BRUCE, JOHN M. CASEY, and WILLIAM R. EVANS ________________ Appeal 2010-009691 Application 11/263,224 Technology Center 2100 ________________ Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JASON V. MORGAN, and JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges. NEW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-009691 Application 11/263,224 2 SUMMARY Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-52. Specifically, claims 1-2, 4-11, 14-17, 19-26, 29-32, 34-41, 44-46, and 49 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Bart (US 6,691,116 B1, February 10, 2004) (“Bart”), Ainsbury et al. (US 6,078,924, June 20, 2000) (“Ainsbury”), and Stahl (US 6,574,640 B1, June 3, 2003) (“Stahl”). Claims 12-13, 27-28, and 42-43 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Bart, Ainsbury, Stahl, and Midgely et al. (US 6,460,055 B1, October 1, 2002) (“Midgely”). Claim 47 stands rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Bart, Ainsbury, Stahl, and Muecklich et al. (US 2004/0083244 A1, April 29, 2004) (“Muecklich”). Claim 48 stands rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Bart, Ainsbury, Stahl, and LaRue et al. (US 6,401,104 B1, June 4, 2002) (“LaRue”). Claim 51 stands rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Bart, Ainsbury, Stahl, and Perinet et al. (US 2002/0169792 A1, November 14, 2002) (“Perinet”). Claim 52 stands rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Bart, Ainsbury, Stahl, and Beeler, JR. (US 2004/0083245 A1, April 29, 2004) (“Beeler”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2010-009691 Application 11/263,224 3 NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to a method for managing backup information. The method includes collecting backup information from a plurality of backup products and converting the collected backup information into a common format. The collected backup information is stored in a centralized catalog, and access to the backup information stored in the centralized catalog is provided. Abstract. GROUPING OF CLAIMS Since Appellants argue that the Examiner erred for substantially the same reasons with respect to claims, 1-2, 4-11, 14-17, 19-26, 29-32, 34-41, 44-46, and 49 we select claim 1 as representative. App. Br. 20, 24-28. Claim 1 recites: 1. A method for managing backup information, comprising: using an automatic discovery service running on a centralized system to automatically find each of a plurality of disparately located backup products using a plurality of backup platforms; collecting backup information from the plurality of backup products; receiving the backup information from the plurality of backup products at the centralized system, the backup information received in a plurality of formats; converting, at the centralized system, the backup information collected from the plurality of backup products in the plurality of formats into a common format; Appeal 2010-009691 Application 11/263,224 4 storing the collected backup information in a centralized catalog; and providing access to the backup information stored in the centralized catalog. App. Br. 30. Appellants argue that the Examiner erred for substantially the same additional reasons with respect to claims 3, 18, and 33; we therefore select claim 3 as representative of this group. App. Br. 24. Claim 3 recites: 3. The method of Claim 1, wherein the backup information comprises information associated with a plurality of backup volumes. App. Br. 30. Appellants argue that the Examiner erred for substantially the same additional reasons with respect to claims 8, 23, and 38; we therefore select claim 8 as representative of this group. App. Br. 25. Claim 8 recites: 8. The method of Claim 1, wherein collecting the backup information from the plurality of backup products comprises requesting the backup information from a plurality of catalogs, each catalog associated with a selected one of the backup products. App. Br. 31. Appellants argue that the Examiner erred for substantially the same additional reasons with respect to claims 12-13, 27-28, and 42-43; we therefore select claim 12 as representative of this group. App. Br. 26. Claim 12 recites: Appeal 2010-009691 Application 11/263,224 5 12. The method of Claim 1, wherein collecting the backup information comprises receiving backup information that is pushed up from the plurality of backup products. App. Br. 31. Appellants argue that the Examiner erred for an additional reason with respect to claim 46. App. Br. 27. Claim 46 recites: 46. The method of Claim 1, wherein the backup information comprises at least one backup volume and at least one description of the backup volume. App. Br. 37. Appellants argue that the Examiner erred for an additional reason with respect to claim 51. App. Br. 28. Claim 51 recites: 51. The method of Claim 1, wherein collecting backup information comprises receiving the backup information in XML [extensible markup language]. App. Br. 37. ISSUES AND ANALYSES We address each of Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as presented in Appellants’ Brief. Claims 1-2, 4-17, 19-32, 34-46, 47-49, and 52 Issue 1 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited prior art references teach or suggest the limitation of claim 1 reciting “using an automatic discovery service running on a centralized system to automatically find each of a plurality of disparately located backup products Appeal 2010-009691 Application 11/263,224 6 using a plurality of backup platforms.” App. Br. 21. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred. Analysis Appellants argue that Stahl teaches “[a]n address catalogue provides at all times an overview of the external archiving systems logged on within a central archive system” and that the external archiving systems must log in to the central archive system before address information for such external archiving systems can be added to the address catalogue. App. Br. 21 (citing Stahl, col. 5, ll. 11-14; claim 7). Appellants argue that, with respect to the import of the index to the central archive system, Stahl teaches only that the “index data is loaded into the central archive system” and that “[a]n address catalogue provides at all times an overview of the external archiving systems logged on within a central archive system.” App. Br. 21- 22 (citing Stahl, col. 4, ll. 20-25; col. 5, ll. 11-15). According to Appellants, Stahl teaches or suggests, at most, that an external archiving system must be “logged on” before the index is imported to the central archive system and that, therefore, the centralized system of Stahl does not include “an automatic discovery service,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 22. Rather, contend Appellants, Stahl teaches or suggests maintaining a catalogue of logged on systems and does not teach or suggest “automatically discover[ing]” or “automatically find[ing]” disparately located products. Id. Appellants argue further that claims 8 and 9 recite merely that an “address catalogue is supplied automatically to the front-end server by the central archive system” and/or that “a new address catalogue is Appeal 2010-009691 Application 11/263,224 7 automatically supplied to the front-end server or the user system when there are any changes to the address catalogue in the central archive.” App. Br. 22 (quoting Stahl, claims 8, 9). According to Appellants, the cited portions discuss when an address catalogue (i.e., index) is supplied by the central archive system to the front end server. Id. Appellants contend that the cited portions do not relate to “an automatic discovery service” and/or finding “heterogeneous external archiving systems” that are coupled to the central archive system, and are therefore not analogous to the limitation of claim 1 reciting “automatically discover[ing] an address for each of a plurality of disparately located backup products using a plurality of backup platforms.” Id. The Examiner responds that the login process of Stahl is analogous to the automatic discovery service on a centralized system automatically finding the backup products as recited in claim 1, because the login process on the Stahl centralized system is the automatic discovery service. Ans. 24. The Examiner finds that this service allows the centralized system to automatically find, or automatically become aware of, the backup products when they log into the system. Id. Therefore, finds the Examiner, when a backup product comes online and logs into the centralized system, the login process, or automatic discovery service, on the centralized system automatically finds, or makes the centralized system automatically become aware of, the backup product. Id. We agree with the Examiner. Stahl teaches that “[a]n address catalogue provides at all times an overview of the external archiving systems logged on within a central archive system, of these system[s]’ defined backup systems and of the primary server which is current at the Appeal 2010-009691 Application 11/263,224 8 time. Changes cause a new catalogue to be produced and stored.” Stahl, col. 5, ll. 11-16; see Ans. 24. We interpret this to mean that the address catalogue oversees all of the defined backup systems of the external archiving (backup) systems connected to the central archiving, and that changes (in the defined backup systems) cause a new (updated) catalogue to be produced and stored. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Stahl teaches or suggests, at most, that an external archiving system must be “logged on” before the index is imported to the central archive system and that, therefore, the centralized system of Stahl does not include “an automatic discovery service.” App. Br. 22. On the contrary, we find that Stahl teaches that changes in the defined backup systems cause the (automatic) generation of a new catalog. Stahl, col. 2, ll. 16; see Ans. 24. We are similarly not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that claims 7 and 8 teach merely that an “address catalogue is supplied automatically to the front-end server by the central archive system” and/or that “a new address catalogue is automatically supplied to the front-end server or the user system when there are any changes to the address catalogue in the central archive” and do not relate to “an automatic discovery service.” App. Br. 22. Stahl teaches or suggests that changes are broadcast to the defined backup systems, but Stahl also teaches or suggests that changes in the address catalogue (automatically generated during the login process) are then distributed to the peripheral backup devices. Stahl, col. 2, ll. 11-16; see Ans. 24. We therefore agree with the Examiner that the cited prior art references teach or suggest the limitation of claim 1 reciting “using an automatic discovery service running on a centralized system to Appeal 2010-009691 Application 11/263,224 9 automatically find each of a plurality of disparately located backup products using a plurality of backup platforms” and conclude that the Examiner did not err in so finding. Issue 2 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited prior art references teach or suggest the limitation of claim 1 reciting “converting, at the centralized system, the backup information collected from the plurality of backup products in the plurality of formats into a common format.” App. Br. 23. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred. Analysis Appellants argue that, although Ainsbury (upon which they allege the Examiner relies in this instance) relates to an information platform that is “a client/server implementation,” and that Ainsbury teaches that “[t]he information platform provides users with multiple ways for collecting vast amounts and varied types of information.” App. Br. 23 (citing Ainsbury, Abstract, col. 2, ll. 59-67). Appellants contend that Ainsbury teaches that the “control center for the information collection is the catalog” and that “[t]he catalog is built upon an object-oriented database, referred to as a ‘store’ … used in conjunction with a rich set of classifications for each information source.” App. Br. 23 (citing Ainsbury, col. 3, ll. 27-28; col. 3, ll. 53-56). Thus, according to Appellants, Ainsbury actually indicates that the catalog stores classifications for each type of information source. App. Br. 23. Specifically, Appellants argue, metadata is stored that includes Appeal 2010-009691 Application 11/263,224 10 “[b]ase information 26 about the specific information element (from where it was obtained, the data format)” and that “[u]sers can find an information source using a variety of different navigation paths.” App. Br. 23 (citing Ainsbury, col. 8, ll. 18-24; col. 3, ll. 57-58). Appellants contend that therefore, to the extent that the server of Ainsbury is a centralized location, the server does not perform conversion of the information into a common format, but rather stores information specifying the format of the information and instructions for how such information is retrieved. App. Br. 23. Appellants argue further that, to the extent that Ainsbury discloses any sort of conversion, Ainsbury discloses that “the information platform exports data to these standard applications to these standard applications for ease of use.” App. Br. 23 (citing Ainsbury, col. 5, ll. 44-47). Appellants argue that Ainsbury teaches that “[t]he information platform takes information from a wide variety of formats (HTML [hypertext markup protocol], text, spreadsheet) and combines them all into a single format (HTML, text, spreadsheet).” App. Br. 23-24 (citing Ainsbury, col. 5, ll. 47- 50). Therefore, argue Appellants, Ainsbury actually indicates that the conversion is performed at the user desktop (i.e., the client) rather than the server. App. Br. 24. The Examiner responds that the information platform taught by Ainsbury is actually a combination of desktop and server technologies. Ans. 24 (citing Ainsbury col. 2, ll. 47-49). The Examiner finds that, since the information platform includes both desktop and server technologies, the portion of Ainsbury cited by Appellant does not specifically teach that the client or desktop portion of the information platform does the conversion. Appeal 2010-009691 Application 11/263,224 11 Ans. 24-25. Moreover, finds the Examiner, other portions of Ainsbury teach or suggest that conversions and other slow, lengthy, or resource intensive tasks are assigned to the centralized server for completion. Ans. 25 (citing Ainsbury, col. 16, ll. 15-30). The Examiner finds further that Ainsbury teaches that the centralized server distributes data to the clients in a single HTTP [hypertext transfer protocol]/HTML compliant format rather than in a plurality of formats as Appellant has suggested. Ans. 25 (citing Ainsbury, col. 16, ll. 27-30). Appellants reply that, although Ainsbury teaches that the centralized server performs slow, lengthy or resource intensive tasks, there is no disclosure in Ainsbury that conversion of the information into a common format is such a task that may be performed by the server. Reply Br. 4. Appellants argue to the contrary that, to the extent that Ainsbury discloses any sort of conversion, Ainsbury discloses that “the information platform exports data to these standard applications to these standard applications for ease of use.” Id. (citing Ainsbury, col. 5, ll. 44-47). Appellants argue that Ainsbury discloses that “[w]hen a user wants to view a particular item, they select an item from the list view and the information it is displayed in a browser window” and that “[c]ase items are displayed using OLE automation as .doc, xls, .pdf and .htm files depending on the individual Case item.” Reply Br. 4-5 (citing Ainsbury, col. 14, ll. 17-20; col. 14, ll. 20- 22). We agree with the Examiner. Appellants admit that Ainsbury teaches that the “control center for the information collection … catalog is built upon an object-oriented database, referred to as a ‘store’ … used in conjunction with a rich set of classifications for each information source.” Appeal 2010-009691 Application 11/263,224 12 (Ainsbury, col. 3, lines 27-56); see App. Br. 23. We find that, as an object- oriented database, the catalog taught by Ainsbury is in a common format, and that the stored metadata that includes “[b]ase information 26 about the specific information element (from where it was obtained, the data format)” provides information regarding format and location of the original stored item, but does not necessitate that the information in the catalog be stored in different formats, as Appellants imply. Ainsbury, col. 8, lines 18-24; see App. Br. 23. Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Ainsbury teaches or suggests that conversions and other slow, lengthy, or resource intensive tasks are assigned to the centralized server for completion, and that the centralized server distributes data to the clients in a single HTTP/HTML compliant format rather than in a plurality of formats. (col. 16 lines 15-30); see Ans. 25. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that Bart teaches this same limitation. Bart teaches that: [T]he central query agent 24 converges the encrypted data streams from the multiple remote query agents 20 into a single data stream. It then forwards the data stream to a database aggregator 26, which is another daemon installed on a computer at the central collection site 12. The database aggregator 26 receives the data stream and inserts the data contained therein into the database 10 in a common format, i.e., a vendor independent data model. Bart, col. 3, ll. 20-28 (emphasis added); see Final Rej. 3; Ans. 5. Appellants not only do not address this finding of the Examiner, but we find it additionally persuasive. We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of the prior art references teaches or Appeal 2010-009691 Application 11/263,224 13 suggests the limitation of claim 1 reciting “converting, at the centralized system, the backup information collected from the plurality of backup products in the plurality of formats into a common format.” Claims 3, 18 and 33 Issue Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Bart, Ainsbury, and Stahl teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 3 reciting “the backup information comprises information associated with a plurality of backup volumes.” App. Br. 24. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred. Analysis Appellants argue that Bart teaches that “[t]hese data sources 14 can include, e.g., computer systems, storage arrays, fiber channel switches, tape archival units, databases and software applications.” App. Br. 24 (quoting Bart, col. 2, ll. 37-40). Appellants contend that there is no disclosure in Bart of “volumes” or a “plurality of backup volumes.” App. Br. 24. The Examiner disagrees. Bart was cited by the Examiner to teach a plurality of volumes because backups were already described by references regarding claim 1 from which claim 3 depends. Ans. 25. The Examiner finds further that most of the cited data sources of Bart would have or are at least one volume and a thus a plurality of data sources would mean a plurality of volumes. Id. Appellants argue in reply that Bart teaches the collection of data from “multiple data sources” but contend that the Examiner provides no basis for Appeal 2010-009691 Application 11/263,224 14 the statement that each data source of Bart comprises at least one volume, because Bart does not mention “volumes.” Reply Br. 5. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Appellants’ Specification explains that “data may be backed up to multiple units of removable media known as volumes.” Spec. 2. Appellants thus define “volume” as a “unit of removable media” upon which data is backed up. Bart teaches that “data is collected in a collection database 10 at a central collection site 12 from multiple data sources 14 at a remote collection site 16. These data sources 14 can include, e.g., computer systems, storage arrays, fiber channel switches, tape archival units, databases and software applications.” Bart, col. 2, ll. 35-40; see Ans. 8. We find that an artisan of ordinary skill would recognize that the “storage arrays” and “tape archival units” taught by Bart are examples of “removable media,” upon which data may be backed up, that correspond to the “volumes” disclosed in Appellants’ Specification. Nor, as Appellants seem to suggest, must Bart explicitly use the term “volume” to satisfy the obviousness test. “While … elements must be ‘arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim,’ the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). We agree with the Examiner’s findings that the combined prior art references teach or suggest the limitation of claim 3 reciting “the backup information comprises information associated with a plurality of backup volumes” and consequently conclude that the Examiner did not err in so finding. Appeal 2010-009691 Application 11/263,224 15 Claims 8, 23, and 28 Issue Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited prior art references do not teach or suggest the limitation of claim 8 reciting “collecting the backup information from the plurality of backup products comprises requesting the backup information from a plurality of catalogs, each catalog associated with a selected one of the backup products.” App. Br. 25. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred. Analysis Appellants argue that Bart teaches that “[t]hese data sources 14 can include, e.g., computer systems, storage arrays, fiber channel switches, tape archival units, databases and software applications” and that there is no disclosure in Bart of “catalogs” or a “plurality of catalogs.” App. Br. 25 (quoting Bart, col. 2, ll. 37-40). The Examiner responds that Bart teaches that Smart Agents 18 retrieve data from Data Sources 14 (which the Examiner has interpreted to be equivalent to catalogs because a data source can be a database or software application), which are on one or more computers (or backup products), at a remote collection site. Ans. 26 (citing Bart, col. 2 ll. 39-44, Figs, 1, 2). We agree with the Examiner. Appellants admit that it is well-known in the prior art that “[s]ome backup technologies maintain catalogs that automatically record onto each volume of removable media, key Appeal 2010-009691 Application 11/263,224 16 characteristics about data that is backed up.” Spec. 2. We have explained supra why we agree with the Examiner that Bart teaches storage arrays and tape archival units that correspond to Appellants’ “volumes” and we agree with Appellants that it was well-known in the contemporaneous art that such backup technologies may maintain catalogs. Ans. 26. We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that the combined prior art references teach the limitation of claim 8 reciting “collecting the backup information from the plurality of backup products comprises requesting the backup information from a plurality of catalogs, each catalog associated with a selected one of the backup products.” Claim 46 Issue Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Bart, Ainsbury, and Stahl teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 46 reciting “the backup information comprises at least one backup volume and at least one description of the backup volume.” App. Br. 27. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred. Analysis Appellants repeat their argument supra that Bart does not disclose a “backup volume.” App. Br. 26. Appellants also argue that Bart discloses only that data is collected “from some particular vendor hardware and software applications” and that smart agents “translate vendor specific data representations to a vendor-neutral data representation or model, i.e., a common format.” App. Br. 27 (citing Bart, col. 2, ll. 46-50). As such, Appeal 2010-009691 Application 11/263,224 17 Appellants contend, abstracted data “looks the same as the data provided form a competing vendor storage array.” Id. Therefore, argue Appellants, Bart merely indicates that the format of the data is changed so that all data is similarly formatted, but does not teach or suggest that “the backup information comprises at least one backup volume and at least one description of the backup volume,” as recited in claim 46. Id. The Examiner repeats his findings supra that Bart teaches or suggests the claim term “backup volume” and finds further that Bart teaches or suggests “at least one description of the backup volume, [finding that] since the data is aggregated for transmission, some description of each of the volumes would be necessary to differentiate them at the central collection site.” Ans. 17 (citing Bart, col. 1 ll. 48-65; col. 2 ll. 45-60). We agree with the Examiner. We have explained supra why we find that Bart’s storage arrays and archival tape units correspond to the claim term “volume” as removable media upon which data may be backed up. We consequently find that Bart’s “storage arrays” “archival tape unit” teaches or suggests the claim term “backup volume.” Moreover, Appellants’ Specification admits backup volumes are well known in the art. See Spec. 2 (“During the performance of backup processes, multiple tapes and/or disks may be used to store a single backup. Additionally, multiple backups may be made of the same data. For this reason, data may be backed up to multiple units of removable media known as volumes.”). Moreover, as we have explained supra, Appellants’ Specification admits that catalogs of backup data are equally well-known in the art. See Spec. 2 (“Some backup technologies maintain catalogs that automatically record onto each volume of removable media, key characteristics about data Appeal 2010-009691 Application 11/263,224 18 that is backed up.”). Consequently, we find that an artisan of ordinary skill in the contemporaneous art would have recognized that Bart teaches or suggests obtaining data from backup volumes, and would have also known that the art teaches that such backup volumes frequently possess catalogs describing the data contained therein. We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that the limitation of claim 46 reciting “the backup information comprises at least one backup volume and at least one description of the backup volume” would have been obvious over the cited prior art references to a person of ordinary skill in the contemporaneous prior art. Claim 51 Issue Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Bart, Ainsbury, Stahl, and Perinet teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 51 reciting “collecting backup information comprises receiving the backup information in XML.” App. Br. 28. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred. Analysis Appellants argue that Perinet does not disclose collecting backup information in XML. App. Br. 28. Rather, contend Appellants, Perinet discloses that an archiver reads data and then “convert[s] [the data] to a predefined archive format” that “is preferably either binary or XML.” Id. (citing Perinet, ¶ [0036]). Appellants argue that, rather than disclosing that Appeal 2010-009691 Application 11/263,224 19 data is collected in XML, Perinet discloses that data is collected and then converted to XML. The Examiner responds that Perinet describes converting the backup information into XML. Ans. 29 (citing Perinet, Fig. 2, block 66; ¶ [0036]). The Examiner finds that Perinet teaches that, after conversion, the backup information is stored on (i.e., received or collected by) the storage device Ans. 29 (citing Fig. 2, block 70, 72; ¶ [0036]). The Examiner therefore finds that Perinet teaches or suggests “receiving the backup information in XML.” Ans. 29. We are persuaded by the Examiner’s reasoning and adopt it as our own. Perinet teaches that: The archiver continues reading the data for each data set from the list (block 64) until a next data set is no longer available in the list (block 62). Once all the data has been read for every data set in the list (block 62), the read data is converted to a predefined archive format (block 66). The preferred archive format is preferably either binary or XML. Perinet, ¶ [0036]; see Ans. 29. Perinet then teaches that “[b]efore the converted data is saved locally on the archiver, it is first determined whether there is already the maximum number of files allowed (Block 68).” Perinet, ¶ [0037]; see Ans. 29. We find that a plain reading of the language of Perinet thus indicates that the data is converted to XML format before it is saved locally (i.e., collected) on the archiver, which we find corresponds to the recitation of claim 1 (from which claim 51 depends) of a “centralized system” “receiving the backup information.” We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Bart, Ainsbury, Stahl, and Perinet teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 51 reciting Appeal 2010-009691 Application 11/263,224 20 “collecting backup information comprises receiving the backup information in XML.” DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-49, 51, and 52 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation