Appeal No. 1997-2686
Application 08/346,635
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis
of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of
the arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Only those arguments actually made by appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered [see
37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 15, 2, 9-12,
14 and 17 based on the teachings of Eggebeen and Von Behren.
These claims stand or fall together [brief, page 7]. With
respect to representative, independent claim 15, the examiner
cites Eggebeen as teaching a drive belt for belt driven tape
cartridges having a layer of high stiffness material and a
layer of low stiffness material. Von Behren teaches the
conventional components of a belt driven tape cartridge. The
examiner asserts the obviousness of using the Eggebeen two-
layer belt in the Von Behren conventional cartridge. The
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007