Appeal No. 2006-2011
Application No. 09/996,720
claimed. The memory card in Shimizu records events related to activities of the user,
but not about usage of the card. Although the examiner is correct to give the terms
recited in the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, we agree with appellants
that the examiner’s broadest reasonably interpretation is not reasonable in this case.
With respect to the rejection of claims 23-26 and 30-33 based on Himoto, the
examiner has presented findings in support of anticipation [answer, pages 7-10]. With
respect to claims 23-26, appellants argue that Himoto does not disclose monitoring
usage of the memory card and storing the usage of the memory card in an area on the
memory card. Appellants also argue that the information displayed on LCD 14 of
Himoto cannot reasonably be interpreted as usage of the memory card [brief, pages 10-
11]. The examiner responds that the memory card of Himoto is used to play games and
store the scores that result from that play. The examiner asserts, therefore, that the
information stored with respect to each game is usage information of the memory card
[answer, page 31-32]. Appellants respond that their specification draws a distinction
between information about the usage of a memory card and information that is merely
stored on a memory card [reply brief, pages 1-2].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 23-26 based on Himoto. We
agree with appellants that the types of information recorded in Himoto cannot
reasonably be interpreted as event descriptors about usage of the memory card as
claimed. The memory card in Himoto records events related to activities of the user, but
not about usage of the card. Although the examiner is correct to give the terms recited
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007