Appeal No. 2006-2011
Application No. 09/996,720
counting the number of writes, artisans would want to know how close they are to the
memory failing so they do not lose songs or pictures that they have saved [answer,
page 38]. Appellants respond that despite the taking of Official Notice, the examiner
has not provided proper motivation as to why the artisan would have modified the Bruce
device to include the claimed features [reply brief, page 4].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims based on Bruce taken
alone. Since these claims depend from independent claim 17 or claim 23, and since the
rejection of these independent claims on Bruce has not been sustained, then the
rejection of these dependent claims is also unsupported by the evidence.
With respect to claim 22, in addition to the arguments considered above,
appellants argue that the examiner has provided no motivation as to why any formats
should be tracked in the Bruce device [brief, page 18]. The examiner responds that
since formatting includes writing, it would have been obvious to the artisan to track
formatting for the same reasons discussed above with respect to image and audio files
[answer, page 38].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 22 based on Bruce taken
alone. Since claim 22 depends from independent claim 17, and since the rejection of
independent claim 17 on Bruce has not been sustained, then the rejection of dependent
claim 22 is also unsupported by the evidence.
With respect to claims 24 and 25, appellants argue that the artisan would not
modify the Bruce device to include a display for reasons discussed above [brief, page
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007