Appeal No. 2002-1185
Application No. 09/112,242
Additionally, we remain unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument
that “guides 415 and 419 merely wrap the tape about the head, and
provide no tape translation around the circumference of the
takeup reel” (brief, page 7). In fact, Leonhardt does show
magnetic tape 425 being conveyed or translated from its
predetermined path, which is shown as tape path 423 in Figure 4
and as tape path 426 in Figure 5, to a path which wraps about
read/write head 416 (col. 5, lines 45-62). We note that similar
to the recited features of claim 1, the new path extends along
three sides of the takeup reel (left, top and right sides) and
forms a 180° spread around a circumference of the takeup reel
while the tape contacts the read/write head.
In view of the analysis above, we find that the examiner has
met the burden of providing a prima facie case of anticipation by
showing that Leonhardt teaches a tape wrap means for translating
said threaded magnetic tape from the predetermined path at least
180° around a circumference of the takeup reel, as recited in
Appellants’ independent claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the
35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 1, as well as claim 2 which is
grouped with claim 1 as standing or falling therewith, over
Leonhardt.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007