Appeal 2007-2131
Application 10/401,331
an improvement must be “more than the predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions.” Id. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-26
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-26 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Ishii in view of Culbert. Since
Appellants’ arguments with respect to this rejection have treated these
claims as a single group which stands or falls together, we will select
independent claim 16 as the representative claim for this rejection solely
because Appellants have argued claim 16 in the Briefs. However, we note
that independent claim 9 is the broadest independent in this group. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
With respect to independent claim 16, Appellants argue that neither
Ishii nor Culbert teaches an archiving means for archiving the one or more
content files into archive storage (Br. 12). Appellants contend that the terms
“archiving” and “compression” may not be used interchangeably as the
Examiner has implied (id.). Appellants provide citations to two dictionary
definitions. This extrinsic evidence provides several alternative definitions
for the term “archive,” including one definition that describes an “archive”
as “[a] file containing one or more files in compressed format for more
efficient storage and transfer” (Br. 12-13). Appellants argue that Ishii does
not teach archiving, but instead teaches file compression (Br. 18).
Appellants contend that Culbert does not cure the deficiencies of Ishii
(Br. 19).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013