Appeal No. 2006-0531
Application No. 09/932,070
references. Even at the bottom of page 16 of the brief, in
characterizing the examiner’s view that it was well known in the
art to randomize the function of CD players, appellants have not
denied this assertion made by the examiner on its merits.
Appellants’ further argument beginning at the bottom of page 15
of the brief is unpersuasive to us in urging patentability of the
claimed invention. Appellants first mischaracterize the teaching
value of both references by indicating the effective
undesirability of combining a system for selecting music on the
basis of subjective content, Cluts, with a reference that teaches
conventional randomization, presumably Looney. Because both
references teach the ability to categorize music on the basis of
various styles, both references teach the same ability to
randomly provide the broadly defined association of the broadly
defined informational unit with the broadly defined attribute.
Contrary as well to the view expressed at the bottom of page 15,
there is no requirement within 35 U.S.C. § 103 of any one
reference specifically teaching how it is to be combined with
another reference.
Since no particular distinction has been made in the brief
as to the system independent claim 1 and the method independent
claim 11, claim 11 falls with our consideration of representative
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007