Appeal 2007-0635
Application 10/176,598
“The memory 210 stores media files.”). Users will do this for a number of reasons,
most commonly to increase the free space in the memory resource to make room
for media files that they would be more interested in hearing. Whether or not Ward
means to include a deleting step in describing the “culling” operation, which is
arguable, a step of deleting culled and rejected media files would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art given the expected benefits the user
would obtain from doing so, namely increasing the free space on the memory
resource.
E. CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 20 over the prior art.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 2, 4-10, and 12-23 is affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claim 11 is reversed.
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-IN-PART
vsh
29
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013