Appeal No. 1998-3365
Application No. 08/673,214
recess as recited in claim 1, and appellant argues that there
is no recess in Ohsawa. Appellant also argues that Ohsawa
teaches no design relationship between an optical head and a
recess [brief, pages 6-8]. The examiner responds that the
recess formed by protrusions 2b and 11a of Ohsawa form a
recess as recited in claim 1. The examiner argues that there
is no requirement that the protrusions overlap one another in
order to form the claimed recess [answer, pages 5-6].
Appellant responds that the first protrusion must extend
radially over a portion of the second protrusion in order to
form a recess in between as recited in claim 1 [reply brief].
We agree with the position argued by appellant. The
first and second protrusions of Ohsawa identified by the
examiner (2b and 11a) do not form a recess in between, the
recess being a space which the optical head goes into when it
is moved to a position corresponding to an innermost portion
of the optical disk as recited in claim 1. We agree with
appellant that the claimed recess must be formed by
protrusions which at least partially overlap each other to
create the space into which the optical head is moved.
Protrusions 2b and 11a of Ohsawa do not form such a recess.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007