Appeal No. 2006-0531
Application No. 09/932,070
given songs with respect to styles are depicted in Figures 11
through 17, and 23 through 25.
For their part, appellants’ brief argues substantially only
the alleged view that the examiner has not provided adequate
motivation of combinability of the teachings and suggestions of
Cluts and Looney in the statement of the rejection. Since we
have previously found that Cluts teaches substantially all of the
subject matter of representative independent claim 1 on appeal,
the arguments are found unpersuasive. Additionally, from our
previous analysis of both references, it should be apparent to
the artisan that there actually are significant overlapping
teachings between the references, thus leading to provide a basis
in the art for the examiner’s broadly defined view of the
combinability, that the randomization feature is desirable to
prevent the monotony of being presented the same songs in the
same order as well as the fact that this capability of random
selection by a system other than the user is well known and
established in the art.
In addition to the examiner’s treatment of five different
topic headings in the Responsive Arguments portion of the answer
beginning at page 6, our earlier discussion with respect to both
references relied upon clearly leads us to conclude that there
are no bases in the brief of the view expressed that the examiner
has exercised impermissible hindsight in the combination of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007