Appeal No. 2000-0575 Page 4
Application No. 08/599,680
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants argue that the combination of Harase and Darden is improper because
Harase is non-analogous art and that there is no teaching in the prior art to suggest the
combination of Harase and Darden. (See brief at page 7.) We agree with appellants.
The examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention "to modify the assembly of Harase to be used for any
data storage device as taught by Darden (including a floppy drive) to increase flexibility
and storage capacity and to use existing state of the art connectors, floppy drives, sizes,
and controls to reduce costs and allow operation with existing computers." (See answer at
page 4.) We disagree with the examiner conclusory line of reasoning for combining
Harase and Darden. From our review of Harase and Darden, we do not agree with the
examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to modify the removable memory card and removable adapter of Harase with the
teachings of Darden since Darden teaches the permanent connection of the support
bracket 100 in combination with a slide-in cartridge 40. (See Darden at col. 3.) The
examiner has not provided a convincing line of reasoning why it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the removable card
system of Harase with the removable memory drive and permanent support of Darden.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007