Appeal No. 2002-1185
Application No. 09/112,242
Turning now to the rejection of claim 7, as well as claim 14
which is grouped with claim 7, Appellants assert that the
specific positional relationship of the takeup reel and the
read/write head with respect to the edges of the tape transport
apparatus are not shown (brief, pages 7 & 8). We note that
although the Examiner refers to a “backside of the tape drive”
and paths linearly extending along and parallel to the backside,
the Examiner points to no teachings in Leonhardt, nor do we find
any disclosure, that would read on the recited proximity to the
edges of the width and depth dimensions. Accordingly, because
the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
anticipation, the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of independent claims
7 and 14 and claims 10 and 15, which depend therefrom, cannot be
sustained.
With respect to claim 24, Appellants argue that Figure 5 of
Leonhardt shows the tape path “in unloaded position ..., as shown
by elements 423 and 426" which are not substantially parallel to
a first tape path linearly extending along a backside of the
cartridge (brief, page 9). The Examiner responds (answer, page
6) by pointing out that the tape does extend along the backside,
which is “the side opposite where the cartridge is open for tape
removal.”
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007