Appeal No. 2005-1724
Application 09/758,127
teaching that the device is ready to execute commands, in
general, and we presume that this is the intent of the examiner's
rationale. However, this is not enough to meet the claim
language: the ACK is not in response to reception of a request
command (it responds to a "is the device ready?" command) and,
so, does not indicate that the device is ready to execute the
particular request command that it received (any commands in
Bastiani are received after the ACK, not before as claimed).
Therefore, we find that Bastiani does not anticipate claim 92.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 92 and 94 is reversed.
Claims 1-3
Claim 1 is a more specific version of claim 92 where the
"request command" of claim 92 is specifically a "format request
command" and where "executing the request command" of claim 92 is
specifically "formatting the corresponding memory." Bastiani
fails to disclose "sending ... a signal indicating that the
portable personal device is ready to format to the computer"
(claim 1) for the same reason it fails to disclose "sending ... a
signal indicating that the portable personal device is ready to
execute the request command to the computer," as discussed in
connection with claim 92. The examiner does not rely on
Kawamura, Kagle, Kobayashi, or Official Notice to cure this
deficiency. Accordingly, the examiner has failed to establish a
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007