Appeal No. 1996-1253
Application 08/113,034
invention of claims 6 to 23 calling for a tape detecting method employing both winding and rewinding
would not have been obvious.
Each of appellant’s claims 6 to 23 call for "a high speed winding search mode of operation" and
"a high speed rewinding search mode of operation" (see independent method claims 6, 11, 16, and 21).
The examiner relies upon Orimoto’s page 4, line 27, to show these modes of operation (Answer, page
9). Orimoto does not teach both a high speed winding search mode and a high speed rewinding mode
of operation as recited in the claims, and the examiner has failed to properly address how these steps
are taught or suggested by Orimoto. Our review of Orimoto reveals that "fast forwarding (or
rewinding)" is performed (Orimoto, page 4, line 27)(emphasis added). Thus, we are in agreement with
appellant (Brief, pages 25 to 34; Reply
Brief, pages 1 to 7 and 10 to 12) that the combination of tape detecting method steps recited in
claims 6 to 23 is neither taught nor suggested by Orimoto. Accordingly, we will reverse the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection as to claims 6 to 23.
In light of the foregoing, the differences between the subject matter recited in claims 1 to 5 and
Orimoto are such that the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing rejections of claims 1 to 5.
We reach the opposite conclusion with respect to claims 6 to 23 which recite the details of combining
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007