Appeal 2007-2842
Application 09/873,638
• Yamanaka’s slidably mounted base frame and sub-frame support
stocker trays “laid to overlap each other in a direction substantially
perpendicular to a loading/unloading direction” (Yamanaka ¶ 10).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Yamanaka describes a disk
changer in which a slidably mounted drawer “support[s] a number of
disk plates arranged one above the other and provided to hold a disk
therein” as required by claim 1.
• Finally, as explained in Yamanaka, when “the base frame 12 is moved
forward from the standby position . . . and reaches the cartridge
loading/unloading position” (Yamanaka ¶ 94), it “remains parallel to
the mount wall G, while the sub-frame 13 swings clockwise through
an angle α2 about the pivot 25a on the base frame 12” (id. at ¶ 96).
“The swing of the sub-frame 13 through the angle α2 causes the first
to third stocker trays 16 to 18 to swing upward through the angle α2”
(id. at ¶ 97). Rear pins 31h, installed on the outer rear surfaces of the
stocker trays, allow the stocker trays to swing upward along with the
sub-frame 13. For example, “[t]he second and third stocker trays 17
and 18 have the front pins 31g inserted into the laterally elongated
holes 25d and 25e of the [ ] side plate of the sub-frame 13 and the rear
pins 31h . . . inserted into the laterally elongated holes 15c and 15d of
the cam plate so that they can move in parallel to the first stocker tray
16 and rotate about the pin 25a of the base frame 12 through the sub-
frame 13” (id. at 86). In other words, rear pins 31h, installed on the
stocker trays and engaging slots in the sub-frame, are hinges that
allow the stocker trays (i.e., disk plates) to pivot about a horizontal
axis with respect to the chassis. Thus, we agree with the Examiner
that Yamanaka describes “at least one disk plate [ ] mounted at one
end via a hinge at the drawer in such a way that it is pivotable about a
horizontal axis of the chassis of the changer” (instant claim 1).
We find that Yamanaka describes a disk changer meeting all of the
limitations of claim 1. As discussed above, claims 2-10 stand or fall with
claim 1. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013