Appeal No. 1997-4444
Application 08/427,884
in Appellant's disclosure. Therefore, the Examiner has failed
to provide sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness. The rejection of claim 9 is reversed.
Claim 10
The additionally applied reference to Tomita does not
cure the deficiencies of Yamakawa and Uchiumi. Therefore, the
rejection of claim 10 is reversed.
Claim 11
Appellant argues that there is no motivation to provide a
converging guide rail as taught by Rudy at Figure 9 and
column 15, lines 33-54, into the apparatus of Yamakawa because
Yamakawa inserts the tray 62 into a lower cell and raises it
through a lower opening to raise the cartridge and, therefore,
a converging guide rail would serve no function (Br13-14).
The Examiner finds that beveling is "old and well known
in the art, as well [as] in a plurality of other arts, and its
application certainly does not require the use of Rudy's
'converging guide rails' as Applicant appears to believe"
(EA20).
- 18 -
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007