Appeal No. 1997-4444
Application 08/427,884
from which the cassette is inserted into a vacant unit"
(Br16).
The Examiner states that "Yamakawa et al explicitly
discloses [sic] the process of releasing and regripping the
cassette, as discussed in the anticipation rejection of
claim 23 [sic, 21]" (EA22).
While Yamakawa does disclose "releasing said cassette
from said pair of coupler arms onto a reference platen," as
recited in claim 23, we fail to see how the Examiner proposes
to modify Satoh to include such a feature. The system in
Yamakawa is inconsistent with the system in Satoh. The
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. The rejection of claim 23 is reversed.
Claim 27
The anticipation rejection of parent claim 25 has been
reversed. The obviousness rationale does not provide any
reasoning which would overcome the deficiencies of Yamakawa
with respect to the rejection of claim 25. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 27 is reversed.
Claim 28
- 23 -
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007