Appeal No. 2002-0831
Application 08/250,286
to versions made by different manufacturers. Therefore, the
examiner’s rejection fails to address the specific limitations
recited in claims 50 and 51.
With respect to independent claim 44, appellants
additionally argue that Toyoshima does not disclose downloading
data from an external memory device [brief, page 23]. We will
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 44. Toyoshima
discloses that programming from card 39 is downloaded by being
read and is used to control the switches of memories 34a to 34d.
We find that this operation constitutes a downloading of
information from an external programmer to a memory device as
claimed.
The remaining claims not specifically discussed above
were either not argued by appellants or contain limitations that
we have discussed above. As a result of the discussion above, we
also sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 36, 37, 45, 53
and 56-58, but we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 54 and 55.
In summary, we have not sustained the examiner’s
rejection of the claims under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112. The rejection of all appealed claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is sustained with respect to claims 35-39, 44, 45, 47-49,
-15-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007