Appeal No. 1998-2514
Application No. 08/426,917
rejection relies on Blumberg for the "forklift" action (vertical movement) shown in Figure 11.
The examiner has not identified, and we do not find, any suggestion for combining the
"plate" of Blumberg with the cassette transport system disclosed by Suzuki.
Moreover, appellants' arguments (e.g., Reply Brief at 4-5) with respect to the lack of
showing of a motivation to combine the references are well taken. The Answer at page 7
alleges that the artisan would have been motivated to replace the "belts and rollers" with a
"gripper assembly" for "more positive contact." The rationale appears to be based on
speculation; no objective teachings from the prior art have been supplied.
For the foregoing reasons we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1. Each of
independent claims 42 and 44 contains the limitation of a plate having a cassette
supporting segment in combination with at least a "first means" and "third means" relating
to movements of the plate, in language following that of claim 1. We therefore do not
sustain the rejection of claims 42 and 44, nor the rejection of claims 43 and 5, depending
from claim 42.
The references of Searle and Tsuyumine have been applied against the remainder
of the claims, 6-8 and 21-25, which depend from independent claim 1. The additional
references, however, fail to remedy the deficiencies in the rejection against the subject
matter of claim 1. We therefore do not sustain the rejection of any of claims 1, 5-8, 21-25,
and 42-44.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007