Appeal No. 96-2742
Application No. 08/311,371
the recording and reproducing unit, either directly or
indirectly, in Figure 3 of the admitted prior art.
The examiner takes the position (Answer, page 4) that
Appellant's [sic] admitted prior art does not
disclose (i) that the third communication means are
separate from the control means, or (ii) that the
carrier (8) directly communicates loading or
ejecting instructions to the player and vice versa.
The examiner turns to Kuo for a teaching to make the third
communication means direct and separate from the control
means, stating that "Kuo shows (in Figure 1) a direct line of
communication between 'ROBOT' and 'CASSETTE PLAYER' that is
separate from the 'CENTRAL PROCESSING UNIT'." As stated
above, we find no such communication from the carrier to the
recording and reproducing unit either directly or indirectly.
Furthermore, contrary to the examiner's assertion, in Figure 1
Kuo shows the mechanical path the carrier takes from a storing
unit to the cassette player, not electrical (or even
mechanical) signals between the carrier and the cassette
player. Thus, Kuo does not provide a teaching or suggestion
to have the carrier and the recording and reproducing unit of
the admitted prior art communicate directly with each other.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007