Appeal No. 1998-0205
Application No. 08/464,150
Kim’s invention revealed in Figures 3, 4A, 4B, and 5. Appellant thus argues about a portion of Kim
that can be considered irrelevant to the instant anticipation rejection, since the conventional structures as
represented by Figures 1A, 1B, 1C, and 2 of Kim show all that is required by instant Claim 5.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Park. As
set forth in the Answer and the Supplemental Answer, the examiner finds there is express suggestion in
Park for providing a “damper means” as claimed. Park’s disclosure, particularly at column 4, lines 21
through 29, provides evidence of prior art recognition regarding the advantage of a “damper means” for
damping upward movement of cassette holders.
Appellant argues in the Brief (page 9) that the examiner relied on hindsight knowledge of
appellant’s disclosure for motivation to combine the references. We consider the allegation to be
factually incorrect. Appellant does not address the clear suggestion in Park for provision of a “damper
means.” To the extent appellant’s comments may allege that the artisan would not have combined the
teachings of the references because of perceived differences between the cassette loaders of Kim and
Park, appellant has not convincingly explained, nor provided evidence to show, that the allegation is
factual. As we have noted previously herein, appellant’s interpretation of Kim as disclosing a “tilting”
mechanism appears based on a flawed reading of the reference.
Since appellant has not shown either rejection to be in error, we sustain the Section 102
rejection of Claim 5 and the Section 103 rejection of Claim 8.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007