Appeal 2007-0833
Application 10/280,254
solution to these problems previously raised in the background of the
invention.
In light of these findings, it is our view that Kikinis teaches the cited
limitations of representative claim 20. It follows that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claim 20 as being anticipated by Kikinis.
Appellants did not provide separate arguments with respect to the
rejection of dependent claims 21, 23, 25, 26 and 28 as being anticipated by
Kikinis. Therefore, they fall together with representative claim 20. See In
re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See
also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
B. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION
Now, we turn to the rejection of claims 1 through 4, 6 through 10, 11
through 13, 15 through 19, 22, 24 and 29 as being unpatentable over Kikinis
in combination with Ha and/or Aguilar. We note that Appellants merely
reiterate the same arguments addressed above in the discussion of
representative claim 20. As discussed above, we find that Kikinis teaches
the claimed file transfer mode and the playback mode. Therefore, we do not
find any deficiencies in Kikinis for Ha or Aguilar to cure. In light of these
findings, it is our view that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found
it obvious to combine the teachings of Kikinis with Ha and/or Aguilar to
yield the invention as claimed. Therefore, it follows that the Examiner did
not err in rejecting 1 through 4, 6 through 13, 15 through 19, 22, 24, 27 and
29 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kikinis with Ha or
Aguilar.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013