Appeal No. 2002-1185
Application No. 09/112,242
OPINION
At the outset, we note that Appellants indicate that claims
1 and 2 constitute one group, claims 7-9 and 14 stand or fall
together, claims 10, 15 and 26 stand or fall together, claims 24
and 25 stand or fall with one another, claims 4, 11 and 16 stand
or fall together and claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 17 and 18 stand or fall
together (brief, page 3). Appellants point to the recited
features that separate these groups (brief, page 4) and further
provide separate arguments for each group, in the arguments
section of the brief for each group, as required by 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7) (July 1, 2000). Therefore, we will consider
Appellants’ claims as standing or falling together as argued in
the brief to the extent they correspond to each ground of
rejection.
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 14,
15, 24 and 25 over Leonhardt
With respect to claim 1, the focus of Appellants’ arguments
is that Leonhardt does not disclose a tape wrap means for
translating said threaded magnetic tape from the predetermined
path at least 180° around a circumference of the takeup reel
(brief, page 6). Appellants point out that the claimed “takeup
reel means” and the “tape wrap means” are different elements
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007