Appeal No. 2006-0829
Application No. 09/921,024
After careful review of the Curtis reference in light of the arguments of record,
however, we are in general agreement with the Examiner’s position as stated in the
Answer. While we agree with the Examiner (Answer, page 4) that there is nothing in the
language of the appealed claims which requires the interpretation
of “control of reading” as meaning the prohibition of reading,
our review of Curtis reveals that Curtis has a disclosure of exactly this circumstance. As
illustrated in Curtis’ Figure 5 flow chart, and described at column 6, lines 46-57 of Curtis,
when both the WORM and MO status bits are not set, no flags are set and the media
device is ejected as not being suitable for a particular drive. Therefore, the storage
status bit conditions in Curtis “control the reading” of the media device as claimed since
when both the WORM and MO storage status bits are not set, the device can not be
read.
In view of the above discussion, since the Examiner’s prima
facie case of anticipation has not been overcome by any convincing arguments from
Appellants, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claim 3, as well
as dependent claim 4 not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained. Therefore, the
decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 3 and 4 is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007