Appeal No. 96-0638
Application 08/074,546
Tobimatsu’s device is not consistent with the examiner’s application of it to the claimed
invention such that the first cover and the second cover as argued by the examiner
correctly correspond to all the structure and functions of claim 1 on appeal. Claim 1 also
requires that the second cover move substantially in parallel with respect to the first cover.
Again, the examiner’s view is incorrect in asserting that the second cover or lid 4 moves
substantially in parallel with respect to the first cover or cassette holder 12, since a fair
interpretation of the operation of these elements in Tobimatsu is such that the cassette
holder 12 actually moves substantially in parallel with respect to the lid 4.
We reach a similar conclusion with respect to the sliding action of the covers
in independent claim 12 on appeal. In certain positions, it may be fairly said that
Tobimatsu’s lid 4 may be interpreted as being mounted on the cassette holder 12 so as to
partially overlap therewith; however, the function of the cover sliding means is not fairly
interpreted as causing a sliding action of the claimed second cover or lid 4 relative to the
first cover or cassette holder 12 in the manner claimed. This stated sliding action must
occur "responsive to rotational motion of the first cover relative to the tape recorder casing”
in the last clause of claim 12 on appeal. In accordance with the examiner’s view, this
sliding action must be responsive to the rotational motion of the cassette holder 12 relative
to the tape recording casing 2/39. This is not the manner in which Tobimatsu’s device
operates. Again, Tobimatsu’s tape holder 12 moves responsive to action of the lid 4 and
not vice versa, which is the essence of the examiner’s position.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007