Appeal No. 1997-2852
Application No. 08/354,454
Claims 2 through 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Miyatake in view of Naito.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 20,
mailed November 26, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants'
Brief (Paper No. 19, filed July 19, 1996) for appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse both the enablement rejection and also
the obviousness rejection of claims 2 through 4.
The examiner asserts (Answer, page 3) that "[m]echanisms
for moving a base plate up and down are known in the art.
However, mechanisms for moving a base plate up and down with a
magnetic field generator that rotates are not known in the
art." As appellants have provided no details in the
specification as to the actual mechanism for changing the
distance between the magnetic field generator and the magneto-
optical disc, the examiner concludes that appellants "has
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007