Appeal No. 95-4553 Page 6
Application No. 08/057,548
and relocking, we have no basis in the reference to infer that
this locking results from the passage of a predetermined
period from a key input. Without that teaching or inference,
we cannot agree that Sander teaches that limitation. See Rowe
v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 480-481, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1555 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (rejecting reliance on the negative pregnant to
show anticipation).
We reverse the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by
Sander. The rejection of dependent claims 2-4 on the same
ground is reversed as well.
Obviousness
"To establish a prima facie case of obviousness based on
a combination of the content of various references, there must
be some teaching, suggestion or motivation in the prior art to
make the specific combination that was made by the applicant."
In re Dance, __F.3d __, __, 48 USPQ2d 1635, 1637 (Fed. Cir.
1998) (original emphasis). Claims 5-8 differ from claims 1-4
in requiring that the recording/reproduction device be a VCR.
The examiner took official notice of VCR doors. The official
notice does not, however, compensate for the lack of a
teaching or a suggestion to lock the bays after a
predetermined period of inactivity. The preponderance of
evidence does not support a finding that the cited prior art
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007