Appeal No. 1998-0147
Application 08/446,278
Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to show any
suggestion or motivation for such a modification (Br17-18).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has failed
to provide evidence of the necessary motivation for the
proposed modification. This is different than the rejection
over Kramer where the elements were present and it was only
a matter of providing reasons why a memory might be built-in
instead of separable. The Examiner could have combined
Kramer, which shows connection to an external digital data
source but not a replay unit with a built-in memory, with
Kondo which shows a built-in memory but not a connection to
an external digital data source, but did not. Also, the
Examiner fails to address the rechargeable battery
limitations in claims 46, 47, and 50, and the identification
code and writing at a clock rate higher than the read rate
as recited in claim 50. We conclude that the Examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to independent claims 46-48 and 50. The rejection
of claims 46-52 over Kondo is reversed.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION UNDER 37 CFR 1.196(b)
- 16 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007