Appeal No. 98-0003
Application No. 08/601,896
We therefore will sustain the examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, noting however
that the reference to Karakane is cumulative. We will also
sustain the standing § 103 rejection of claims 2-4, 6-12 and
17 since appellant expressly states that claims 1-4, 6-12 and
17 stand or fall as a group.
Claim 16 is directed to “[a] support for a disc-shaped
recording medium for use with a holder in a combination as
claimed in claim 1.” For purposes of this appeal, we
interpret claim 16 as being directed to a support per se which
is capable of being used with the holder of claim 1.
Ouwerkerk’s cartridge comprises a support having the required
capability, as broadly claimed. Accordingly, Ouwerkerk’s
cartridge responds to all the limitations of claim 16, as
interpreted, such that claim 16 lacks novelty over Ouwerkerk.
We therefore will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, with the reference to Karakane once
again being cumulative. Appellant’s argument on page 12 of
the brief with respect to claim 16 is moot in that it is
directed to limitations to claim 16 that were to be effected
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007