Appeal No. 2000-2293
Application No. 08/685,162
teaches that a disc cartridge 9 may alternatively be used that
presses outwardly against holding hooks 20 until the cartridge
advances into the housing and hooks 20 return to fit into notches
10 on the sides of the cartridge (col. 6, line 62 to col. 7 line
2). However, our review of the reference reveals no teaching
related to using the holding hooks as a break-away mechanism for
preventing damage to the disc holding tray upon impact of an
external force when the disc supporting portion is extended from
the housing, as recited in claim 1.
As the Federal Circuit states, "[t]he 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), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125,
1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The court further reasons in Karsten Mfg.
Corp. v. Cleveland Gulf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1385, 58 USPQ2d 1286,
1293 (Fed. Cir. 2001) that for an invention to be obvious in view
of a combination of references, there must be some suggestion,
motivation, or teaching in the prior art that would have led a
person of ordinary skill in the art to select the references and
combine them in the way that would produce the claimed invention.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007