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 12Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007