Ex Parte Nelson et al - Page 6

              Appeal 2007-0690                                                                     
              Application 10/224,917                                                               


                    by claim 1.  Rather, Jones ‘638 teaches a stand-alone FlashToaster             
                    (80) that is capable of copying data from certain types of flash-              
                    memory cards onto removable storage media (floppy disk, CD, etc.)              
                    in response to a push button (79).  The Examiner’s allegations that            
                    Jones ‘638 provides a portable mass memory device, 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, are wholly unsupportable in view of the substantial               
                    differences and deficiencies of Jones ‘638.  Put another way, the              
                    FlashToaster (80) of Jones ‘638 is directed to a single, stand-alone           
                    data handling function: the copying of data files from one media to            
                    another.  Such an operation cannot be reasonably described as                  
                    selective arrangement and deletion of data from [a] mass memory.               
                    Accordingly, it is impossible for the components recited in Jones ‘638         
                    to anticipate Appellants’ claim 1.                                             
                    These arguments of the Appellants are consistent with our                      
              understanding and study of Jones ‘638.  Moreover, we do not agree with the           
              Examiner’s responsive arguments as to this rejection at pages 30 and 31 of           
              the Answer.   Specifically, the Examiner construes the wherein clause as a           
              negative limitation that “only requires that the data cannot have any editing        
              functions performed on it that are not selective arrangement or deletion of          
              data; it does not positively require that the data can be selectively arranged       
              and deleted.”  (Id. at 31.) .  We understand the wherein clause to have              
              positive and negative aspects.   It appears to us that the claimed device,           
              consistent with Appellants’ arguments above, is claimed to be only enabled           
              to edit by selective arrangement (selectively organizing) and selective              
              deletion.  The device is not enabled to perform any other types of editing           
              functions.  The teachings in Jones ‘638 are not so specific, principally the         
              discussions at columns 9 through 11 as they pertain to figures 9 and 10 of           

                                                6                                                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013