Ex Parte MACLEOD BECK et al - Page 9
Legal Research Home >
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 2005 > Ex Parte MACLEOD BECK et al - Page 9
Appeal No. 2004-1702
limitations and we can only address the reasoning in front of us.
Goetz does not cure the deficiencies of Syeda and Gill with
respect to the editable layer. For these reasons, the rejections
of claims 1-15 are reversed.
Method claim 16 contains the limitation of "editing an
editable layer of the at least one IMV by programming limitations
restricting access by the IMV to preselected multimedia files,"
which is similar to the two limitations of: (1) "an editable
layer allowing the programmer to program selective control of
access by the IMV to the multimedia files"; and (2) "the
programmed selective control in the editable layer restricts
selected multimedia files from being accessed by the IMV."
Again, we do not find where the examiner addresses the particular
limitations of claim 16. Although appellants argue that "[t]he
Examiner must therefore provide prior art that not only has
software for accessing a database, but a method for assembling
the application or software" (Br12), we would probably consider
the method steps to be inherent, or at least obvious, if the IMV
software module including the editable layer restricting access
would have been obvious. However, since the rejection does not
establish the obviousness of an editable layer restricting
access, and since Goetz does not cure the deficiencies of Syeda
and Gill, we reverse the rejections of claim 16-20.
- 9 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: November 3, 2007