Appeal No. 1997-3970
Application No. 08/391,379
unit. The value of the impedance in loading detector 8 is
neither discussed by Ozawa nor would its value be indicative
of any property of the cassette itself. Since all the
limitations of the rejected claims are not present in the
disclosure of Ozawa, we do not sustain the rejection of these
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Ozawa.
We now consider the rejection of claims 2, 14, 15, 27,
28 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the
disclosure of Sawada. The examiner has indicated how he reads
these claims on Sawada [answer, pages 5-7]. Appellants argue
that each of these claims recites that the impedance value
contains the cassette characteristic and that Sawada’s use of
an IC chip does not teach or suggest the use of impedance
values to encode cassette characteristics [brief, page 7].
Appellants also argue that Sawada’s conductors 18 do not have
impedance values and Sawada would not operate if the
conductors were replaced with impedance elements [id., page
8]. We note that the examiner has referred to the IC chip 15
or conductors 18 of Sawada as meeting this limitation.
We again agree with appellants that Sawada does not
fully meet the invention of these claims. Sawada’s cassette
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007