Appeal No. 2000-1234 Page 4
Application No. 08/911,442
17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Sato.
OPINION
After considering the record, we are persuaded that the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, 8-12, 16, and 17.
Accordingly, we reverse. Our opinion addresses the following
rejections:
• obviousness rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, and 8-10
• anticipation rejection of claims 11, 12, 16, and 17.
I. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 4, 5, and 8-10
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or
appellant in toto, we address the point of contention
therebetween. The examiner asserts, "as seen from figure 33
each of bins (26 and 27) is adapted to accommodate a plurality
of different types of cassettes. Also, not [sic] column 6
lines 11-23 which discusses that different types of cartridges
can be put in the bins.” (Examiner's Answer at 5.) The
appellant argues, "in claims 1 and 4, each substantially
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007