Appeal No. 97-0445
Application 08/170,020
[brief, pages 5 to 6]. We do not find any showing, or any
suggestion, in Hasegawa where one of ordinary skill in the art
would come up with the claimed limitation: “second means ...
within the second CD [compact disk] player;” [claim 2, lines
10 to 15] without the blueprint of Appellant’s invention.
Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 2 over Hasegawa. The obviousness rejection of claim 6,
which depends on claim 2 and contains at least the above
discussed limitation of claim 2, is also not sustained.
However, claim 5 depends claim 4 and further
contains the limitation: “wherein the cutout portion of each
holder ... is substantially pie shaped.” [Claim 5, lines 1 to
3]. After considering the Examiner’s rejection [answer, pages
5 and 6] and Appellant’s argument [brief, pages 5 and 6], we
agree with the Examiner that the shape of the cutout portion
of each holder and the extended portion of the assembly, as
long as they match to allow the movement of the assembly
through the cutout portion of the disc holders, see figures 1
and 2 of Hasegawa, can be of any shape including being “pie-
shaped”. We, therefore, sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 5 over Hasegawa.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007