Appeal No. 1997-1503 Page 10
Application No. 08/422,649
manually on the floor plate 230 through the front opening 238"
of the loading chute 36. Col. 13, ll. 6-7.
Furthermore, the examiner has not identified anything in
the prior art that would have suggested bypassing the loading
chute 36 of Jenkins in favor of direct entry of cartridges
into the drum unit 40. To the contrary, Jenkins aims to
“mak[e] it impossible for anyone to be injured,” col. 3, l.
30-31, by its tape library and to ensure that the library is
“fool-proof and vandal free.” Id. at l. 31. Specifically,
the reference ensures that “no one can . . . place a cartridge
directly in a drum where the computer control cannot find it.”
Col. 3, ll. 32-36. In view of these teachings, the examiner’s
conclusion amounts to impermissible reliance on the
appellants’ teachings or suggestions.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the
prior art would have suggested a door that permits a large
number of cartridges to be directly entered, all at once, into
the cells of a cell column in a cell unit as claimed. The
examiner has not established a prima facie case of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007