Appeal No. 2003-1877
Application No. 09/375,071
No. 16, filed February 3, 2003) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 18,
filed June 16, 2003) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 2 and the
obviousness rejection of claims 3 through 26.
Independent claims 1 and 8 each recite a step of
"redesignating the first region as a new end of file region."
Similarly, claims 12 and 17 recite a means "for redesignating the
first region as a new end of file region." Likewise, claims
20 and 24 recite computer-readable program code means "for
redesignating the first region as a new end of file region."
Appellants argue (Brief, page 7) that Sherman fails to teach or
suggest any redesignation of a region as a new end of file
region. We agree.
Sherman discloses (column 2, lines 54-56) that container
302 includes objects A, B, and C. Sherman teaches (column 3,
lines 17-48) that when a user edits object C, object C is moved
to be immediately following object A, and then edited object B is
written to the position immediately following C. In other words,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007