Ex parte TANIAI et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 96-2742                                                            
          Application No. 08/311,371                                                    


               third communication means (55) for transmitting                          
          electrical instruction signals from said carrying means to                    
          said recording and reproducing means indicating that the                      
          recording medium is ready to be loaded into said recording and                
          reproducing means and from said recording and reproducing                     
          means to said carrying means indicating that the recording                    
          medium is ready to be unloaded from said recording and                        
          reproducing means, said third communication means being                       
          separate from said control means.                                             


               The prior art reference of record relied upon by the                     
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:                                 
          Kuo                  4,989,191                      Jan. 29, 1991             
               Claims 1 through 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103                 
          as being unpatentable over appellants' admitted prior art as                  
          shown in Figures 1-4 and described on pages 1-11 of the                       
          specification in view of Kuo.                                                 
               Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 30,                
          mailed March 25, 1996) and the Supplemental Examiner's Answer                 
          (Paper No. 33, mailed August 13, 1996) for the examiner's                     
          complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the                   
          appellants' Brief (Paper No. 29, filed January 11, 1996) and                  
          Reply Brief (Paper No. 31, filed May 28, 1996) for the                        
          appellants' arguments thereagainst.                                           
                                        OPINION                                         
                                           3                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007