Appeal 2006-3350
Application 10/287,411
basis for combining the disclosures of Sai and Huang. Accordingly, we
determine that the Examiner has shown all claimed elements were known in
the prior art but has not given any reason why one skilled in the art would
have combined the prior art elements to make Appellants’ claimed
invention. On the record before us, it follows that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1 and 17 under § 103(a). Since claims 2-16 and 18-29 are
narrower than claims 1 and 17, it also follows that those claims were not
properly rejected under § 103(a) over Huang and Sai.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have shown that the Examiner has not given sufficient
reason why one skilled in the art would have incorporated Sai’s storage of
the recording request into the portable device of Huang so as to result in the
claimed elements. On the record before us, claims 1-29 have not been shown
to be unpatentable.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-29 is Reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013