Appeal No. 2002-2128
Application No. 08/793,984
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set
forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the invention as set forth in claims 43-51 and 53-84.
Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 43 and 84 based on Watanabe, Appellant asserts
that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness since all of the limitations of claims 43 and 84 are
not taught or suggested by the applied Watanabe reference. In
particular, Appellant contends (Brief, page 8; Reply Brief, pages 5
and 6) that Watanabe does not provide for the accessibility of a
first memory device independent from a second memory device, a
feature present in each of the independent claims 43 and 84.
After careful review of the Watanabe reference, in light of
the arguments of record, we are in general agreement with
Appellant’s position as stated in the Briefs. Although the
Examiner (Answer, page 7) points to the background discussion at
column 1, lines 58-67 of Watanabe, which makes reference to
existing personal data archive systems with independently
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007