Appeal 2007-1289
Application 10/425,899
distinguish over the teachings and suggestions of Mooney and Sabet
together. The disclosed invention plainly utilizes well-known prior art flash
memory devices as does Sabet, for example. Appellant’s attempts in the
Reply Brief to essentially belittle Sabet’s teachings by arguing that the
controller and processing functions of Appellant’s claimed flash drive are
more simpler and less complicated then those of the disclosed invention are
misplaced since these features are not reflective in the claims on appeal.
Moreover, the Reply Brief does not appear to directly challenge the
Examiner’s view that the claimed “memory device” comprises the portable
device 15 with its flash memory 13 placed in it.
Moreover, Appellant’s remarks in the Reply Brief do not contest the
Examiner’s reference to the Koh patent as being representative of a USB
port connectable flash drive per se. Of particular note here from our review
of this reference, figures 1, 4, 5, 11, and 12 of Koh contains significant
corresponding teachings to those in Sabet. In fact figure 4 of Koh presents a
depiction of a conventional USB port compatible flash memory drive well-
known in the art. Figures 1 and 5 of this reference have block diagram
representations of the internal controller/microprocessor with internal
programming memory and storage capabilities compatible with those shown
in figure 3B of Sabet. Although, not relied upon by the Examiner as basis to
formulate the rejection of the claims on appeal, we note in passing that Koh
appears to us to be directly pertinent to the claimed and disclosed subject
matter.
In addition to the Examiner’s remarks with respect to the argued
dependent claims, we note that the features recited in dependent claim 4 on
appeal relate to Appellant’s reliance upon prior art Blowfish compression
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013