Application No. 09/304,644
Appeal No. 2004-0887
been sent to the requesting computer in some manner, such as from
a floppy disk or from a computer which is the same or different
than the one sending the digital content.
The appellants argue that neither Löfberg nor Holmes
discloses all the limitations of claim 94 (brief, pages 19-20).
This argument is deficient in that the appellants are attacking
the references individually when the rejection is based on a
combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426,
208 USPQ 871, 882 (CCPA 1981); In re Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757-58,
159 USPQ 725, 728 (CCPA 1968).
We therefore conclude that the invention claimed in the
appellants’ claim 94 would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 94.
DECISION
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 81, 82, 86,
88-92 and 94 over Löfberg in view of Holmes is reversed as to
claims 81, 82, 86, 88-92 and affirmed as to claim 94. The
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 83, 84 and 85 over
Löfberg in view of Holmes, Cox and van Schyndel, and claims 87
and 93 over Löfberg in view of Holmes and Klingman, are reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007