Ex parte ARRIS et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1998-2501                                                        
          Application No. 08/534,149                                                  


               The invention is directed to a cartridge tape door                     
          opening apparatus best illustrated by reference to claim 15                 
          reproduced as follows:                                                      
               15.   An apparatus for opening a door in a tape                        
          cartridge, the door covering an opening in an edge wall of the              
          tape cartridge, the door having a rear edge, the apparatus                  
          mounted in a tape drive, the tape drive including a chassis                 
          and a magnetic head, the apparatus comprising:                              
               a rotating arm rotatably attached to the chassis such                  
          that the rotating arm is free to rotate in an arc and the                   
          rotating arm having a door engaging end; and the door engaging              
          end positioned so that when a tape cartridge is inserted into               
          the tape drive in a direction transverse to the edge wall with              
          the edge wall moving towards the magnetic head, the rear edge               
          of the door is forced against the door engaging end of the                  
          rotating arm, forcing the door open.                                        

               The examiner relies on the following reference:                        
          Kukreja et al. [Kukreja]       5,109,308        Apr. 28 1992                
               Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as                   
          anticipated by Kukreja.                                                     
               Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the                     
          respective positions of appellants and the examiner.                        


                                       OPINION                                        


               We reverse.                                                            
                                         -2-                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007