Appeal No. 1999-2850
Application No. 09/042,861
overload, we find no reason, and the examiner has convinced us of none, for the
artisan to have looked to other references for a teaching of breaking a frangible member
for some application in Zinsmeyer or Fushimoto. That is, neither Zinsmeyer nor Fushimoto
suggests that there is any problem to be solved that would suggest the
solution of employing breakaway frangible members. In fact, there is nothing in Zinsmeyer
or Fushimoto to suggest that they teach anything more than the conventional minimal
frictional resistance to movement of a print ribbon on a printer cartridge. Therefore, the
question remains that, other than appellants’ own disclosure, where is the suggestion for
using breakable frangible members in either Zinsmeyer or Fushimoto?
The examiner specifically points to element 95 in Zinsmeyer and suggests that “tab”
95 in Zinsmeyer may be made to be broken in the instance of a jam. However, we do not
find this suggestion to be well-founded. Element 95 in Zinsmeyer is identified in that
reference as a “rib” on a reel drive sprocket [column 11, line 63]. There appears to be no
reason for one to break a rib on a reel drive sprocket.
While the instant independent claims appear rather broad, they all require, in one
form or another, a breakable frangible member, or a force limiting mechanism, or a
transmission means connected to a media means for delivering a moving force to the
media means responsive to movement of the transmission means and for “ceasing to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007