Appeal No. 2002-1252
Application No. 09/362,583
co-planar with other elements, does this refer to the port of the
drive, a flat portion of the drive mechanism itself, or to the
housing of the drive? Clearly, the term “co-planar,” as broadly
set forth in the instant claims, is not very descriptive of the
invention.
While a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
would clearly be warranted, we leave any such rejection up to the
examiner in any future prosecution. For our purpose, we read the
term “co-planar” as broadly as reasonably permitted, to mean that
any portion(s) of the plurality of slots, the media drive, and
the robotic mechanism lying in a common plane would meet the
claim language, “wherein the plurality of slots, the at least one
media drive, and the robotic mechanism are co-planar.” Clearly,
a quick reference to Sato’s Figure 1 or 2 reveals that, at some
point during transfer of the cassette from slot to drive unit, at
least portions of drive unit 18, slots holding cassettes 15 and
carrier (or robotic mechanism) 20 are co-planar. In fact,
reference to figure 1 of Sato would appear to indicate that
certain two-dimensional portions of elements 15, 18 and 20 are
within the plane of the page upon which the drawing is depicted.
Hence, these elements are “co-planar.” Hence, the claim language
is met.
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007