Appeal No. 2004-0334 Page 6
Application No. 08/853,608
In the answer (pp. 3-10), the examiner states that the above-noted limitations of
claims 1 and 6 are disclosed in Porter. However, the examiner is incorrect for the
reasons set forth in the briefs before us in this appeal. In a nutshell, the claims recite,
inter alia, a sleeve attached to a storage rack of an autochanger; a data cartridge
insertable into a data cartridge caddy in the storage rack; a first referencing
means/mechanism on the sleeve to align the data cartridge with data cartridge caddy in
one direction; and a second referencing means/mechanism on the sleeve to align the
data cartridge with the data cartridge caddy in a another direction which is transverse to
the one direction. Porter provides means to align the data cartridge caddy with the
storage rack. Porter does not provide any means to align the data cartridge with the
data cartridge caddy let only the specific structure/steps set forth in claims 1 and 6.
For the reasons set forth above, claims 1 and 6 are not anticipated by Porter.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 and 6, and claim 2 to 5, 7 to
10 and 13 to 15 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed.
The obviousness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We
have reviewed the Japanese reference to Fukazawa additionally applied in the rejection
of claims 11 and 12 (indirectly or directly dependent on claim 6) but find nothing therein
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007