Appeal 2007-0833
Application 10/280,254
mode to transfer files between a host device and memory of the handheld
device, and (2) upon detecting a second external condition, retrieving a
second set of operational instructions to playback multimedia data stored in
the memory when the handheld device is not connected to the host, as
recited in representative claim 20. (Br. 8.) In response, the Examiner
contends that Kikinis teaches the cited limitations, and therefore anticipates
representative claim 20. (Answer 4 and 9.)
Additionally, Appellants contend that Kikinis taken in combination
with either Ha and/or Aguilar does not render claims 1 through 4, 6 through
13, 15 through 19, 22, 24, 27 and 29 unpatentable. Particularly, Appellants
contend that, among other things, neither Kikinis nor Ha nor Aguilar teaches
the file transfer mode and playback mode, as claimed. (Br. 9 and 10.) The
Examiner, in contrast, contends that both Ha and Aguilar complement
Kikinis’ teachings to yield the invention as recited in claims 2 through 6, 8
through 10 and 12 through 18. (Answer 5, 8 and 11.) Therefore, the
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to combine the teachings of the cited references to render the cited
claims unpatentable. (Id.)
We affirm.
ISSUES
The pivotal issues in the appeal before us are as follows:
(1) Have Appellants shown that the Examiner failed to establish that the
disclosure of Kikinis anticipates the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b). Particularly, does Kikinis’ disclosure of a personal directory
assistant with a microcontroller that loads different programs to operate
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013