Appeal No. 1996-3084
Application 08/168,167
the claimed type of “automated cartridge system” is often in
the art called a “jukebox” cartridge storage system, where
Juengel presents in Figure 7 to the artisan an analogous
structure since the tool rotating drum or magazine 102 in this
figure associated with the computerized numerical control
machine tool system 100 is physically analogous to prior art
“jukebox” systems utilized to store and search various tape
cartridge mechanisms. Thus, there would have been an obvious
logical commendation among the teachings of Juengel which
would have been clearly pertinent to an inventor's attention
in considering the problems or deficiencies of the prior art
as set forth in In re Clay,
966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The discussion
in the paragraph bridging columns 4 and 5 of Juengel also
lists various advantages to the approach taken according to
both embodiments set forth in this reference.
In accordance with appellant's claim grouping, the above
arguments have been principally addressed to the rejection set
forth of independent claims 1 and 16. No arguments have been
presented by appellant with respect to dependent claims 2
through 8. It is noted that independent claim 9 is identical
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007