Appeal No. 2006-3352
Application No. 09/682,520
II. Whether the Rejection of Claims 2 and 3 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied
upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the invention as set forth in claims 2 and 3 to be obvious over Wisor.
Appellant has presented no new arguments concerning the limitations in claims 2
and 3, but has relied upon the reasons in the Brief for the patentability of claim 1. In
view of the discussion above, we affirm the rejection.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of
claims 2 and 3 as being obvious over Wisor for the same reasons as set forth above.
III. Whether the Rejection of Claims 4 to 12 and 15 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for
being obvious over Wisor in view of Ayers is proper?
Appellant argues against the rejection of claims 4 to 12, stating that these claims
depend on claim 1, which should be patentable for reasons discussed above. In view of
the discussion of the Wisor patent supra, we sustain the rejection of claims 4 to 12 on
these grounds.
In addition to the argument as presented for claim 1, appellant argues that
neither Wisor nor Ayers maintains a distinction between a “storage area” and a “file” as
claimed in claim 4 (Brief, page 10). As mentioned by the examiner, “Ayers discloses in
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007