Appeal No. 2004-0174
Application No. 09/789,405
with the Schneider book at pages 170-174 that the use of name, initials and other
personal information was known and combinable with the teachings of Chou and
Hartman, the examiner has still not shown a teaching of the use of the “media reader
apparatus ID” nor has the examiner provided a convincing line of reasoning as to why it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
use this ID in the encoding. (Answer at pages 9-12.) Therefore, we cannot sustain the
rejection of independent claim 70 and its dependent claims. Similarly, we cannot
sustain the rejection of independent claims 75, 80, 83, 88, 93, 96, 97, 98, and 99 and
their respective dependent claims that also claim the media reading apparatus ID.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 70-102 under
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007