Appeal No. 1998-0205
Application No. 08/464,150
between said up and down positions,’ as expressly required by claim 5.” (Brief, page 5.) Second,
appellant argues that Kim “does not disclose the connecting means of the claimed invention.” (Id. at 7.)
The thrust of appellant’s first argument appears based on an erroneous reading of the reference.
On pages 5 and 6 of the Brief appellant argues that the reference “tilts” the housing for removal of the
magnetic tape. Appellant refers to Figure 1A of Kim and argues that “the Kim device is pivotably fixed
at the end opposite to the cassette opening.” (Brief, page 7.) “One end of the Kim housing is anchored
while the other is raised, to effectuate the open-by-tilting method.” (Reply Brief, page 3.) Appellant
does not point out where the structure for “fixing” or anchoring one end of the cassette holder 11 in
Kim is thought to exist.
Contrary to appellant’s interpretation, the written description of Kim, as at column 1, lines 21
through 22, refers to “lifting and lowering links 13a and 13b,” and the remainder of the disclosure
makes clear that the entire extent of cassette holder 11 is moved up and down. Compare Figure 1A
with Figure 1B -- the end of the cassette holder opposite from tape 10 is higher in Figure 1A. The
reference does not refer to cassette holder 11 as “tilting,” contrary to appellant’s implication. Kim
instead refers to the holder as being lifted and lowered.
To the extent appellant may argue that there is a certain degree of tilt during raising and
lowering of cassette holder 11 in the reference, we agree with the assessment. Figure 1A of the
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007