Appeal No. 2004-1702 Application 09/182,745 limitations and we can only address the reasoning in front of us. Goetz does not cure the deficiencies of Syeda and Gill with respect to the editable layer. For these reasons, the rejections of claims 1-15 are reversed. Method claim 16 contains the limitation of "editing an editable layer of the at least one IMV by programming limitations restricting access by the IMV to preselected multimedia files," which is similar to the two limitations of: (1) "an editable layer allowing the programmer to program selective control of access by the IMV to the multimedia files"; and (2) "the programmed selective control in the editable layer restricts selected multimedia files from being accessed by the IMV." Again, we do not find where the examiner addresses the particular limitations of claim 16. Although appellants argue that "[t]he Examiner must therefore provide prior art that not only has software for accessing a database, but a method for assembling the application or software" (Br12), we would probably consider the method steps to be inherent, or at least obvious, if the IMV software module including the editable layer restricting access would have been obvious. However, since the rejection does not establish the obviousness of an editable layer restricting access, and since Goetz does not cure the deficiencies of Syeda and Gill, we reverse the rejections of claim 16-20. - 9 -Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007