Appeal No. 97-1198
Application No. 08/245,954
Appellants argue (Brief, page 6) that "Applicants’
admitted prior art . . . fails to teach or suggest the
required reset means" because "rather than teaching reset
means or a reset circuit that resets the disc player 'in
response to the disc ejecting means ejecting the disc' as
required by the claims, Applicants’ admitted prior art merely
teaches a reset switch that resets the disc player in response
to an operator activating the reset switch."
We agree. "Thus, an operator that activates a reset
switch to reset the disc player in response to the ejection of
a disc is not the same as or equivalent to reset means that
reset the player in response to the disc ejecting means
ejecting a disc" (Brief, page 11). The obviousness rejection
of claims 1 and 6 is, therefore, reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 2 through 5 and 7
through 10 is reversed because the disk player teachings of
Otsubo do not cure the noted shortcomings in the teachings of
Shimada and the admitted prior art.
DECISION
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007