Appeal No. 1997-4444
Application 08/427,884
The tray 62 in Yamakawa which corresponds to the claimed
"reference mechanical structure" is "fixed to" (attached to)
the carrier. Thus, we find claim 4 to be anticipated by
Yamakawa. The rejection of claims 4-8, 12, and 13 is
sustained.
Claims 21-24
Appellant notes that the accessor 20 of Yamakawa requires
a different insertion sequence for a tape drive unit versus
for a cell and a different extraction sequence for a tape
drive unit versus for a cell. Appellant argues that claim 21
requires the extracting step and the inserting step to be the
same regardless of whether the occupied or vacant unit is a
storage unit or a tape drive unit.
The Examiner states (EA18): "The open language of the
claims does not exclude the existence of other steps; also,
the details of the steps are not claimed. Again, limitations
in the specification cannot be read into the claims for the
purpose of avoiding the prior art."
We agree with the Examiner that the claim language
"without changing said steps (a) through (d) depending upon
said occupied unit being either a tape drive unit or a storage
- 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007