Appeal 2007-0244
Application 09/777,500
by the Examiner. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive since
the argument does not address the merits of the rejection.
From our review of the teachings of Chen, we find that Chen
teaches geographic separation and independence from the meta data
server and periodic communication between the servers which we find
to be non-continuous. Therefore, Chen teaches “the media data server
being separate and independently operated from the meta data server,
including without continuous observation by, and communication
with the meta data server” contrary to Appellants main argument in
the Brief. Therefore, we find that Appellants have not shown error in
the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness, and we will sustain
the rejection of independent claims 8, 33, and 45.
In addition, we find that Appellants rely upon the base
arguments with respect to independent claim 9 for each of their other
groupings. Since we did not find these arguments persuasive with
respect to claim 9, we similarly do not find them persuasive with
respect to representative claims 10, 18 and 20, and we will sustain the
rejection of all the dependent claims.
A review of Appellants’ Reply Brief shows that Appellants reiterate
the arguments of the Brief and now controvert the teachings of Jones, which
were relied upon by the Examiner in the Final Rejection and the Examiner’s
Answer, and which were not argued in the Principal Brief. Since we find
that the Examiner merely reiterates the rejection from the Final Rejection,
we find that Appellants’ arguments in the Reply Brief are not timely
presented, and we have no response from the Examiner concerning the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013