Appeal No. 2003-0605
Application 09/257,322
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and reply brief for
appellants' positions, and to the answer for the examiner's
positions.
OPINION
We reverse.
As expressed at pages 5 and 6 of the answer, the examiner's
rejection is predicated on the view that Ishikawa fails to
disclose the specifically claimed structure of the guide rail
mechanism. The examiner takes the position (answer, pages 5-6)
that Ishikawa does provide for the drawer 6 to slide from its
retracted to its extended position by means of a guide rail
mechanism which is not described in detail. Because Cirocco's
specific teachings of guide rail mechanisms make up for
Ishikawa's silence as to this matter (answer, page 7), the
examiner considers that it would have been obvious for the
artisan to have utilized the teachings of Cirocco's guide rail
mechanism for the non-disclosed corresponding portion in
Ishikawa.
Contrary to the examiner's apparent views, Figures 1-3 of
Ishikawa do not show and column 4, beginning at line 15, does not
discuss the use of a guide rail mechanism in Ishikawa's cartridge
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007