Appeal No. 2004-1020
Application No. 09/486,908
meaning of a “device.” Moreover, assuming, arguendo, we are to
give the claimed “device” the meaning of a “program memory,” as
urged by appellant, there is no reason why a program memory
cannot comprise more than a single element.
Further, even appellant admits that page 3, lines 14-15, of
the instant specification indicates that “the data storage device
can also fundamentally be a matter of other, arbitrary data
storage devices.” We do not agree with appellant that this
language would be understood by the artisan as “still requiring
some form of an integrated device.” Integration has never been
indicated as being a criterion of the claimed storage device.
Since appellant has not convinced us of any error in the
examiner’s position, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1-7
and 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
-9–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007