Appeal No. 2002-2289
Application No. 08/851,304
have made but chose not to make in the Brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
Appellants’ arguments in response assert that the Examiner has
not shown how each of the claimed features is present in the
disclosure of Diehl so as to establish a case of anticipation. In
particular, Appellants contend (Brief, page 4) that the stored
information (ECM, EMM) in the security card 11 in Diehl, in
contrast to the present invention, provides access to information
by performing descrambling.
After careful review of the Diehl reference in light of the
arguments of record, however, we are in general agreement with the
Examiner’s position as stated in the Answer. Initially, we find
that, although Diehl performs descrambling to access an incoming
data stream, which the Examiner likens to the claimed “additional
data,” there is nothing in the language of representative claim 1
which precludes a descrambling operation. Further, we agree with
the Examiner that the above referenced incoming data stream, which
is pointed to by the stored ECM and EMM data elements and upon
which descrambling is performed, is as much a “location” as that
described at page 4, lines 9-19 of Appellants’ specification in
which an incoming data stream (DS1) is described as a “location” of
additional data identified by the pointer (PO).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007