Appeal No. 97-1398
Application 08/295,225
disclosed: "the part 10 which possesses a large surface
roughness becomes the cleaning tape, and the part 11 which
possesses a small roughness becomes the check tape."
Therefore, both "check tape" 11 and "cleaning tape" 10 have
surface roughness. As [a] result[,] when the rough surfaces
rub against the internal components, cleaning of the
components takes place due to the abrasiveness of the
surfaces.
Nevertheless, appellants did not file a supplemental reply brief
addressing this contention, which strikes us as a reasonable one.
In the absence of any argument or evidence in opposition to the
this contention, we agree with the examiner that Fujimura's check
portions 11 satisfy claim 3's requirement for "simultaneous
cleaning and playing." See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326,
231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (where the Patent Office has
reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be
critical for establishing novelty in claimed subject matter may,
in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it
possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that
the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess
the characteristic relied on) (citing In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660,
169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971), and In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 169
USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971)).
From the foregoing discussion, it is apparent that the only
limitations of claim 3 that are not satisfied by Fujimura are the
claimed videocassette housing, the supply reel, and the takeup
- 16 -
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007