Appeal No. 98-0003
Application No. 08/601,896
and scratches” (answer, page 4). Presumably, cartridge 2 of
the proposed Ouwerkerk/Karakane combination would correspond
to the “support” of claim 1 and the case 8 of the proposed
Ouwerkerk/Karakane combination would correspond to the
“holder” of claim 1. However, in that the shutters 8 of
Ouwerkerk’s cartridge 2 already provide protection from dirt
and grime, there is no apparent need for providing Karakane’s
case to cover the window thereof, as proposed by the examiner.
Accordingly, there is simply no cogent reason for the
examiner’s proposed reference combination, as we understand
it.
Returning to the Ouwerkerk reference, Ouwerkerk’s support
2 comprises two parallel rigid main walls 3A, 3B, with said
main walls having inwardly facing spaced apart inner surfaces
for loosely receiving the disc 1 so as to allow it to rotate
freely during playback. Main wall 3A has a window 6A and main
wall 3B has a window 6B for allowing access to the disc.
Thus, Ouwerkerk’s cartridge responds to all the requirements
of claim 1 regarding the “support” or “cartridge.” Appellant
is not understood to argue otherwise.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007