Appeal No. 1997-3980
Application 08/253,887
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by
Noguchi. Claims 1, 8 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner relies upon Noguchi alone.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the examiner, reference is
2
made to the brief and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse both rejections of the claims on appeal.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102, appellant asserts that Noguchi
does not teach two clauses of claim 13 on appeal: the first being “a shaft extending through
said spindle holes of said disks to secure said disks in said magazine;” and the second
being “said shaft being sized to keep said disks in held positions that insure proper
withdrawal and insertion of said single disk.”
As to this rejection, the examiner does not set forth any details with respect to the
manner in which all details, including the just noted portions of claim 13, Noguchi meets
within 35 U.S.C. § 102 the subject matter of claim 13 on appeal. It appears from page 6 of
the answer that the examiner argues the correspondence of the two noted clauses argued
2In the communication from the examiner on April 21, 2000, the examiner has not
entered the reply brief. As such, we have not considered it in our deliberations.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007