Appeal No. 1998-2514
Application No. 08/426,917
second modes of operation, respectively." (Answer at 5.) The rejection turns to
Motoyoshi and Blumberg for suggestion of the features missing from Suzuki.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that the "plate" set forth in claim 1 is not disclosed or
suggested by the references (Brief at 13-17). On page 15 of the Brief, appellants note that
the rejection refers to "plate 29 of Motoyoshi," and submit arguments against a
combination which may include the "plate" disclosed by Motoyoshi.
The examiner responds (Answer at 12-13) that Motoyoshi was relied upon for
teaching a "gripper mechanism"; Blumberg was relied upon for a "plate" which exchanges
cassettes using a "forklift motion." We observe that the rejection refers (id. at 5) to
Motoyoshi "having a plate (29)." The rejection refers (id. at 6) to Blumberg disclosing a
"plate" having a "longitudinal axis." However, the Answer at page 8 refers to "the plate of
the vertical transporting means of the device of Suzuki et al as modified in view of
Motoyoshi et al...." At the bottom of page 8 of the Answer, the rejection further alleges
obviousness of "[s]izing and shaping the plate of Suzuki et al as modified in view of
Motoyoshi...." Since the examiner has not pointed out a "plate" in Suzuki, we assume, as
did appellants, that "plate" 29 of Motoyoshi is submitted as being suggestive of the "plate"
that is claimed.
Motoyoshi discloses, in the embodiment described at column 6, line 21 through
column 11, line 21, a "moving (or "movable") body 29" (Fig. 9) to which is attached, inter
alia, clampers 40 and leaf springs 52 which serve to support cartridge 1 as it is removed
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007