Appeal No. 1997-4444
Application 08/427,884
unit and said vacant unit being either a tape drive unit or a
storage unit" in claim 21, step (e), does not define over
Yamakawa. The step of "extracting a cassette from an occupied
unit, said occupied unit being either a tape drive unit or a
storage unit in which said cassette is received" requires only
a broad step of "extracting." Although the details of
Yamakawa's extracting step vary depending on whether it is
from the cell (Figure 17) or the tape drive (Figure 18), the
broad step of "extracting" is the same. Claim 21 does not
preclude steps not recited in step (a) from being different.
The same arguments can be made for the "inserting" step (d).
Thus, we find claim 21 to be anticipated by Yamakawa. The
rejection of claims 21-24 is sustained.
Claims 25 and 26
Appellant argues that Yamakawa does not disclose "said
reference platen being fixed relative to said engaging
assembly" as recited in claim 25.
The Examiner relies on the arguments for claim 1 (EA18).
For the reasons stated in the analysis of claim 1, we
agree with Appellant that the limitation "said reference
platen being fixed relative to said engaging assembly"
- 15 -
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007