Appeal No. 2003-0752 Page 4
Application No. 09/915,393
explanation of the invention provided in the specification and the arguments made by
the appellants in the Briefs, we interpret this language to be a structural limitation
requiring that the leader be of such rigidity as to be capable of being pushed out of the
cartridge as the reel is rotated (specification, page 27 and Figure 10; Brief, page 5;
Reply Brief, pages 3 and 4).
Olsen discloses a cartridge in which there is positioned a flexible tape 14 to the
end of which is attached a leader 74. Olsen explains that leader 74 “may be of flexible
plastic fabrication, but preferably, is more rigid than web 14.” There is no teaching in
the reference that leader 74 is sufficiently rigid as to be capable of being pushed from
the cartridge. Moreover, such a degree of rigidity apparently is not necessary to the
Olsen invention, for if the leader need only be “flexible,” it is not required to be capable
of being “sent out” from the cartridge as a result of rotation of the reel, and the
presumption thus arises that the leader is not capable of being pushed from the
cartridge by rotation of the reel. In this regard, the function of the leader is described
only as being “for facilitating threading” (column 1, lines 33 and 34), and the reel drive
spindle is described as providing torque only in the rewinding direction (column 2, lines
38 and 39). Thus, it appears to us that in Olsen the leader is pulled from the cartridge,
and there is no evidence provided, nor reason to assume, that it is capable of
functioning in the manner prescribed in claim 2.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007