Appeal No. 1999-0162
Application No. 08/414,248
USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA 1961); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148
USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966).
Further, it is our opinion that, notwithstanding the
merits of the Examiner’s generalized assertion that multi-disk
cartridge exchange manipulations are well known, such
assertion does not address the issue of obviousness with
respect to the appealed claims. The mere fact that the prior
art may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner
does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification. In re Fritch,
972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). After reviewing the Motoyoshi and Ishibashi
references, we find no motivation for the skilled artisan to
apply the multi-disk cartridge teaching of Ishibashi to the
disk storage system of Motoyoshi. There is nothing in the
disclosure of Motoyoshi to indicate that the alignment of a
single playback device with a single multi-disk cartridge from
an array of cartridges, the problem addressed by Ishibashi,
was ever a concern. It is our opinion that the only basis for
applying the teachings of Ishibashi to the structure of
Motoyoshi comes from an improper attempt to reconstruct
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007