Appeal No. 1998-2504
Application No. 08/664,279
Claims 1-28, 31, and 33-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Fago.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 27, mailed Dec. 11, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 26, filed Sep. 5, 1997) and reply
brief (Paper No. 29, filed Feb. 13, 1998) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants argue that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Kobayashi
with respect to the use of a cartridge magazine and a separate cartridge slot for individual
cartridges with the teachings of Fago with respect to the use of a
priority slot in the magazine cartridge. (See reply brief at pages 1-2.) We agree with
appellants. The language of claim 1 requires “a priority slot separate from the
magazine port and adapted to directly receive a cartridge for processing by the drive
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007