Appeal No. 2005-0321
Application No. 09/575,776
mechanism, the processor and the visual display all refer to the file directory
information. We find that independent claims 6, 10, and 13 contain similar
limitations. While we recognize, as pointed out by the examiner, and
acknowledged by the appellant1 that there are some inconsistencies between
how the file directory information is referred to in the different limitations of the
claims (i.e. in claim 1, the loading mechanism limitation states: “the drive
component reads the directory file information”, and the processor limitation
states “programmed to read and communicate only file information”), we
nonetheless find it clear that the scope of the independent claims includes either
displaying, printing, viewing or outputting, only with the file directory information.
Nonetheless, the examiner and the appellant should insure that these
inconsistencies are corrected in the application.
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and consideration of
all the pertinent evidence and arguments. “In reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision
on appeal, the Board must necessarily weigh all of the evidence and arguments.”
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
“[T]he Board must not only assure that the requisite findings are made, based on
evidence of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are
deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61
1 Appellant states on page 2 of the brief that an amendment after final to rectify antecedent basis
issues in the claims has been presented and a copy of the amended claims is also attached to the
brief. The amended claims, in the May 7, 2003, after final amendment, do not contain the noted
inconsistencies. However, the examiner states on page 2 of the answer that the amendment after
final was not entered.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007