Appeal No. 96-2686
Application 08/224,213
controlling the contact with the tape and for loading and
unloading the cassette, as evidenced by Herleth [answer, page
3].
Appellant first argued that Oguchi did not show a cable
wound around a pivot axis in cylindrical form [brief, page 5],
but later yielded to the Examiner's argument on this point
[reply brief, page 1]. Still remaining is the argument by
Appellant that there is no translational movement of the head
in Oguchi. Further, he asserts that Herleth shows the to and
from movement of the slide 6, carrying the head 5, in relation
to the tape, but does not show the pivoting motion of the head
and that Herleth does not at all disclose the printed cable or
other electrical connections. Appellant concludes that
clearly there is nothing in the teachings of Oguchi or Herleth
that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to combine
the pivotal and translatory movements of the magnetic heads of
these two patents. Also, for the same reason, he asserts that
such a combination would not yield an electrical connection
between a magnetic head and a stationary part of the recorder
by a flat flexible electrical conductor [cable] arranged as a
cylindrical spiral around a transitory [translatory] axis
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007