Appeal No. 2002-1185
Application No. 09/112,242
In response, the Examiner interprets juxtaposed as “side by side”
and concludes that moveable guides 415 and 419 are side by side
the takeup reel (answer, page 6). We note that the moveable
guides, elements 415 and 419 depicted in Figures 4 or 5, are
actually shown as positioned askew, and not juxtaposed or side by
side, with respect to takeup reel 402. Therefore, the applied
prior art reference does not anticipate claim 26 and we cannot
sustain its 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection over Leonhardt.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 4-6, 8, 9, 11-13
and 16-18 over Leonhardt
The Examiner acknowledges that Leonhardt does not show a
third moveable guide means, a rack and pinion means or the
specific recited width and depth dimensions (final rejection,
page 5). However, the Examiner merely takes Official Notice and
relies on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify the tape drive of Leonhardt and adds the missing elements
(id.).
As a general proposition, in rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting
a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d
1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To reach a
conclusion of obviousness under § 103, the examiner must produce
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007