Appeal 2007-1289
Application 10/425,899
of which are also taught for decrypting purposes. Independent claim 22 is
considered to be collectively argued with the features of representative
independent claim 21 on appeal. The functionality of claim 21 is stated with
respect to the memory device and not the USB flash drive per se.
Of particular interest in Sabet are the teachings at figures 1, 2, 3B, 6
and various parts of figure 8. The various internal parts of portable device
15 are shown in figure 2 and a corresponding showing in figure 3B shows
the internal structure in block diagram form of the flash memory stick 13. It
is apparent to the artisan from both figures at least that file structures are
essentially taught as to both elements.
In a corresponding environment, Mooney clearly shows
corresponding structure in figures 1, 4, 7, 8, and 11. The use of file
extensions to identify file structures in the memory structures of Mooney is
illustrated in figure 4 in the form of a main screen or user interface. In
addition to the specific teachings at columns 2 and 6 outlined by the
Examiner in the rejection, which specifically teach of the use of specialized
file extensions to identify the encrypted information, it appears to us that the
entire discussion at column 6 beginning at line 16 through line 30,
encompassing what the Examiner relies upon here, is also instructive. File
structures and extensions thereof are well recognized in the data processing
arts to separately identify different data structures, files, programs, or
applications.
In addition to the Examiner’s responsive arguments in the Answer
beginning at page 6 addressing the positions set forth by Appellant in the
principal Briefs on appeal, Appellant’s remarks in the Reply Brief focus
almost exclusively on alleged disclosed versus claimed features to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013