Appeal No. 96-0496
Application No. 08/131,332
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of either
independent claim 11 or independent claim 12 under 35 U.S.C.
' 103.
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 16
Independent claim 16 requires a support portion “wherein a
support portion for supporting a peripheral edge of the overwrite
type magneto-optical disk is projected from at least one of
facing upper and lower sides of the cartridge casing.”
The examiner relies on Kato’s teaching of the
interconnection of bosses 15 and cylindrical portions 16 for
concluding that it would have been obvious to provide the
cartridge of Tadokoro with corner support portions, the rationale
being “to make the housing stronger” [page 8-supplemental
answer]. We disagree.
The bosses and cylindrical portions of Kato provide for the
interconnection of disk cartridge casings. However, there is no
indication, teaching or suggestion by Kato that these “support
portions” act, in any manner, to support “a peripheral edge of
the overwrite type magneto-optical disk,” as claimed.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 16
through 18 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103.
CONCLUSION
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 5, 6, 9
through 12 and 16 through 18 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007