Appeal No. 1997-3960
Application 08/249,700
appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments which
appellant could have made but chose not to make in the brief have
not been considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to representative, independent claim 12, the
examiner cites Motoyama as teaching a disc cartridge for use with
a disc apparatus which is capable of determining whether the
inserted cartridge contains an optical disc or a magneto-optical
disc. In other words, the Motoyama device makes the very same
discrimination as the disclosed invention. The examiner
acknowledges, however, that Motoyama fails to teach the disc
having a diameter of 64 mm, the recess formed in the lateral side
of the cartridge, the height of the recess determining the type
of disc within the cartridge, and the positioning pin engagement
holes as recited in claim 12 [answer, pages 3-4]. The examiner
cites Suzuki as teaching the use of positioning pin engagement
holes in a disc cartridge, and the examiner asserts the
obviousness of using such pin positioning holes in the Motoyama
apparatus. With respect to the remaining acknowledged
differences between the invention of claim 12 and the teachings
of Motoyama, the examiner simply declares that each of these
differences would have been obvious to the skilled artisan [id.,
pages 5-6].
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007