Appeal No. 97-2423
Application 08/275,964
December 5, 1996, (Paper No. 15) has not been entered as
noted in the communication (Paper No. 16), and has not been
considered.
OPINION
Appellant argues (Br7): "When properly interpreted,
neither Simone nor Smith suggest any structure for
accomplishing respective rotation between a bar code reader
and a tape cartridge. Nor do the references even recognize
that such rotation would be desirable." The examiner states
(EA8): "The rotation table of Simone rotates the cartridge
with respect to the bar code reader. Appellant is correct
in stating that Simone does not have relative movement
between the cartridge and bar code reader, but this is not
claimed." The issue then is whether the claims require
relative rotational movement between the cartridge and the
bar code reader.
Claim 9 recites "a rotatable table for rotating a
cartridge placed thereon with respect to said bar code
reader, said bar code reader reading a bar code from the
cartridge placed, by said accessor, on said rotatable
table." Independent claims 1 and 8 contain a similar
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007