Appeal No. 2003-1533
Application No. 09/566,910
(Brief, page 11) that the examiner has not shown why the second
partition must inevitably be hidden (as would be required for
inherency). Appellants also contend (Brief, page 11) that "there
is no reason to hide the secondary partition in the network
appliance of Kikinis because only trained computer technicians
would have access to such a device." Further, appellants
indicate (Reply Brief, pages 5-6) that the second partition of
Kikinis is visible since it is disclosed as being read-only.
Although it seems to us that the skilled artisan would have
wanted to make the secondary partition hidden to the user, for
example to prevent confusion so people would not try to tamper
with the files stored therein, we agree that the examiner has not
provided the required evidence. Although the examiner asserts
inherency, the examiner has not provided an explanation or
evidence of inherency. The reasoning set forth by the examiner
is more akin to a reason for obviousness, but the examiner did
not provide any evidence to support a conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 2, 8, 15,
19 through 24, and 26.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007