Appeal No. 2004-0040
Application No. 09/273,820
not expect any given “directory location” comprise both first and
second files. Even if the claimed files are located within the
same directory, they would not be located in the same directory
location. Clearly, the teaching value of Van Huben and what the
artisan knows as normal in operating systems generally, even
separate directories would encompass the ability to store first
and second files in separate locations. Appellant’s arguments do
not dispute the examiner’s reliance on the Microsoft Computer
Dictionary, third edition, at page 148, which is clearly a
standard reference work; the examiner is free to rely upon this
dictionary to expand upon the teachings of files and terms
already resident within Van Huben itself. We are therefore not
persuaded by appellant’s arguments at pages 18 through 20 of the
brief as to claim 10 on appeal.
Turning lastly to the subject matter of independent claim
15, in addition to our previous remarks with respect to our
consideration of the features of independent claims 1 and 15 on
appeal together, we note appellant’s argument that claim 15
recites a “means for executing” feature therefore invoking the
sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The argument at page 21 of
the brief urging that this feature be narrowly construed is
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007