Appeal 2006-2625
Application 10/033,879
The following rejection is before us for review.
1. Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Appellants’ admitted prior art of a media library (AAPA) in view of Faiman
and Priestley.
Rather than reiterate in detail the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellants regarding this appeal, we make reference to the
Examiner's Answer (mailed March 20, 2006) for the Examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection and to the Appellants’ Brief (filed January 12,
2005) and Reply Brief (filed July 7, 2005) for the Appellants’ arguments.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully considered the
Appellants’ specification and claims, the applied prior art, and the respective
positions articulated by the Appellants and the Examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations that follow. It is our view that, after
consideration of the record before us, the Examiner has failed to present a prima
facie case of obviousness of the claimed invention.
In the rejection of independent claim 1, the Examiner determined that
Faiman teaches “a control device” that operates a device in “a first mode where the
door is closed and the device moves at a first specified speed” and “a second mode
where the door is open and the device moves at a second specified speed that is
slower than said first specified speed” (Answer 4). We disagree with the
Examiner’s reading of Faiman, and we further note that the recitation provided by
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013