Appeal 2007-0690
Application 10/224,917
Rather than repeat the positions of the Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief (no Reply Brief has been filed) for Appellants’
positions, and to the Answer for the Examiner’s positions.
OPINION
We reverse each of the above-stated rejections.
To simplify our consideration of the rejections and issues on appeal,
we note that independent claims 1, 15, 18, and 22 are each rejected under
Section 102 as being anticipated by Jones ‘638. Additionally, independent
claims 1, 15, and 18 are rejected under a different portion of Section 102 as
being anticipated by Leanheart. Lastly, independent claim 22 is rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Leanheart and Jones‘638. Since we
reverse each of the respective rejections of each of these independent claims,
the deficiencies we will note below briefly with respect to Jones ‘638 and
Leanheart have not been cured by the additional prior art relied upon in the
additional rejections noted earlier.
Each of the independent claims 1, 15, 18, and 22 on appeal contains
the same wherein clause, apparently derived from originally filed dependent
claim 6, as reproduced here:
wherein the device is not enabled to allow data stored in the mass
memory to be edited other than selective arrangement and deletion of
data from the mass memory.
This feature is derived from Specification page 4, lines 25 through 31 and
the discussion at Specification page 11, lines 5 through 15.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013