Appeal No. 2004-1302
Application No. 09/789,757
disk locating and securing apparatus 1 to satisfy the “rigid
boss” limitation of claim 1. It follows that we shall sustain
the rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Cheung. We also
shall sustain the rejection of claim 21 as being anticipated by
Cheung since the storage medium stored by Cheung is a CD.
We shall not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim
3 based on Cheung. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and adds that
the tray is of rigid plastic material. The examiner contends
(answer, page 4), without explanation, that Cheung’s tray is made
of relatively rigid plastic; however, Cheung is silent in this
regard and we are unaware of anything in the Cheung disclosure
which supports the examiner’s contention. Accordingly, we are
constrained to agree with appellant’s cursory argument in the
paragraph spanning pages 10-11 of the brief that Cheung does not
anticipate claim 3. We also shall not sustain the rejection of
claims 4-6, 15 and 18 as being anticipated by Cheung since these
claims depend either directly or indirectly from claim 3.
Claim 20 depends indirectly from claim 3 and adds that the
rosette has a thickness less than a thickness of the rest of the
tray. For reasons stated infra in our new rejection, we are of
the opinion that this claim limitation does not comply with the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. However, given that we have
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007