Appeal No. 97-1398
Application 08/295,225
Siddiq's technique of using alternating cleaning and
instructional segments, which will result in alternating periods
of cleaning and playing. Nor will the limitation in question be
satisfied if, as the examiner contends, it would have been
obvious "to modify the tape portion of Sasaki et al[.] so that
the cleaning of the head is done by the tape portion as in the
cleaning/diagnostic tape taught by Siddiq" (Answer at 6), as this
will also result in alternating periods of cleaning and playing.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 3 and 30 over Sasaki in view
of Siddiq is reversed, as is the rejection of dependent claims
12, 31, 32, 35, and 40, which are grouped therewith.4
Independent claim 2 does not call for simultaneous cleaning
and playing. Instead, it recites, inter alia, a tape portion and
a leader portion, with the tape portion having a scrubbing
material that differs from the scrubbing material on the leader
portion and the leader portion having a length which prevents it
4With respect to claim 3's requirement for different
scrubbing materials on the front and back sides of the tape, we
note that appellants do not challenge the examiner's taking of
"official notice" that this is "notoriously old and well known in
the art" (Answer at 5). In fact, appellants state that
"[a]lthough tapes may exist which have different cleaning
properties on the front than on the back, whether by design or
coincidence, this has no bearing on the claimed invention" (Brief
at 13-14).
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007