Appeal No. 1997-2857
Application 08/171,175
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Dujari et al. (Dujari) 4,811,124 Mar. 07,
1989
Fincher et al. (Fincher) 5,341,251 Aug.
23, 1994
(Filed Feb. 28, 1992)
QIC Development Standard (QIC), “Serial Recorded Magnetic Tape
Cartridge for Information Interchange”, Quarter-Inch Cartridge
Drive Standards, Inc. Santa Barbara, California, QIC-91-43,
Revision C, pp. 1-48, (February 26, 1992).
Claims 1-5 stand finally rejected as being drawn to an
inadequate disclosure and as being vague and indefinite under
the first and second paragraphs, respectively, of 35 U.S.C. §
112. Claim 1 stands further finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Fincher. Claims 2-5 stand
further finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence
of obviousness, the Examiner offers Fincher in view of QIC
with respect to claim 2, and Fincher in view of Dujari with
respect to claims 3-5.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs and Answers for the 2
2 The Appeal Brief was filed January 16, 1996. In
response to the Examiner’s Answer dated April 24, 1996, a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007