Appeal No. 96-1183
Application 08/102,858
Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293,
227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S.
1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732
F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These
showings by the examiner are an essential part of complying
with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to independent claims 1, 9, 10 and 15, the
examiner cites Christie as teaching a device for effecting
translational-rotational-translational movement of an optical
disk cartridge carrier. The movement in Christie is not
effected using a rack and pinion system. The examiner cites
Ikedo as teaching a rack and pinion system for moving an
optical disk cartridge carrier. The Ikedo rack and pinion
system provides translational movement only. The examiner
cites Rached as teaching a rack and pinion positioning system
in which linear movement can be converted to rotational
movement and vice versa. It is the position of the examiner
that it would have been obvious to the artisan to effect the
desired movement in Christie using a rack and pinion system as
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007