Ex Parte Spencer et al - Page 12


              Appeal No. 2006-2011                                                                                     
              Application No. 09/996,720                                                                               


              disclose displaying information about the usage of the memory card on a display on the                   
              memory card.  Appellants also argue that Shimizu does not suggest keeping track of                       
              how many times its card has been used, and that replacing its circuitry with a sticker                   
              would render the Shimizu device unfit for its intended purpose [brief, pages 14-15].  The                
              examiner responds that the monitor 710 of Shimizu could be considered a display on                       
              the memory card [answer, page 36].  Appellants respond that a monitor separate from a                    
              memory card is not a display on a memory card as claimed [reply brief, page 5].                          
              We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, and                     
              22 based on Shimizu taken alone.  As noted above in the rejection of claim 14, the                       
              information recorded on the memory card in Shimizu cannot reasonably be interpreted                      
              as memory card usage.  Since separately argued claims 2, 13, 20 and 21 depend from                       
              claim 1 or claim 17, we also do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of these dependent                  
              claims.                                                                                                  
              With respect to the rejection of claims 20-22, 24, and 25 based on Bruce taken                           
              alone, the examiner has presented findings in support of obviousness [answer, pages                      
              21-23].  With respect to claims 20 and 21, in addition to the arguments considered                       
              above, appellants argue that even if music files and image files require writes, the                     
              examiner has provided no proper motivation as to why the stored image files in Bruce                     
              should be music files or image files [brief, page 17].  The examiner responds that                       
              appellants failed to challenge findings in support of Official Notice and that these facts               
              are now admitted prior art.  The examiner also notes that since Bruce discloses                          


                                                          12                                                           





Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007