Appeal No. 1998-1798 Page 9
Application No. 08/596,538
claimed invention, we ascertain whether there is any
suggestion or motivation in the prior art to make the
selection made by the appellant. That is, something in the
prior art as a whole must suggest the desirability, and thus
the obviousness, of making the modification. See In re
Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir.
1992); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist and
Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462, 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
With this as background, we analyze the prior art applied
by the examiner in the rejection of the claims on appeal.
Ohkubo discloses a tape drive apparatus 100 for driving a
drive roller 9 in a data cartridge 5 that advances tape 11 in
the tape cartridge. As shown in Figures 5 and 6, the tape
drive apparatus 100 includes a movable base member 24 arranged
to pivot about shaft 36 in a direction generally opposite to a
direction of insertion of the data cartridge 5 in the tape
drive apparatus 100; a motor 23 mounted to the movable base
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007