Appeal 2007-1289
Application 10/425,899
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the Examiner must make the
factual determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1996). Furthermore, “‘there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness’ . . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., No. 04-1350, slip op at 14 (U.S., Apr. 30, 2007)(quoting In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
As to independent claims 21 and 22, pages 3 and 4 of the Answer set
forth the Examiner’s initial statement of the rejection of independent claims
21 and 22 which is expanded upon based upon the Examiner’s responsive
arguments beginning at page 6. As emphasized at pages 7, 9 and apparently
set forth as a restatement of the rejection at page 10 of the Answer, the
Examiner considers that Sabet teaches a memory device in figure 1
comprising the memory stick 13 and/or a portable device in this figure as
depicted by element 15, which together are removably attachable to a first
computer shown in that figure by a USB connector. Whereas the portable
device and software loaded thereon has a preloaded file structure such as
discussed at Sabet page 3, paragraphs 0029 and 0034 utilizing this approach,
the Examiner considers Sabet to teach substantially all the subject matter of
representative independent claim 21 on appeal except for the claimed file
extension for which the Examiner relies upon Mooney. Correspondingly,
Appellant’s remarks beginning at page 4 of the Reply Brief do not contest
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013