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