Appeal No. 1999-0008
Application No. 08/625,834
below which is not argued in that court, even of it has been
properly brought here by reason of appeal is regarded as
abandoned and will not be considered. It is our function as a
court to decide disputed issues, not to create them.”).
The examiner rejects the claims on appeal on two separate
combinations. We will consider each combination separately.
Miyamoto and Odawara
The examiner rejects claims 13 and 16 to 18 under this
combination at pages 4 and 5 of the examiner’s answer.
Appellants argue, brief, at page 5, that:
[T]he examiner acknowledges that the references do not
teach or suggest the opening and closing member being
mechanically coupled during a preset disc loading
interval, but being mechanically decoupled during
other intervals. Miyamoto clearly has operative
members mechanically coupled to the lid at all times,
not decoupled during other than the loading operation
as recited in claim 13... However, the Examiner does
not consider this a patentable difference.
The examiner responds, answer at page 10, that:
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007