Appeal No. 2004-1302
Application No. 09/789,757
formed concentrically with the upraised central hub
portion 224 and, optionally or preferably, extending
outward into the adjacent annular area 222, such that
the upwardly extending hub portion 224 may be
diametrically constricted or contracted resiliently when a
recording disk having a nominally smaller center aperture is
pushed downwardly concentrically over the slotted, upraised
hub portion 224, to thereby receive and securely retain such
disk in place.
Wynalda explains the advantage of providing for different
hub configurations at column 4, lines 51-65, as follows:
[E]ach of the different types of hub configurations
116, 216, and 316 . . . are made to be interchangeably
mountable on the record-holder 10 to accommodate
different manufacturers and/or packagers, thereby
providing a packaging flexibility not previously
available. This allows a basic, standardized
record-holder 10 to be manufactured and held in
inventory, to be joined with any of several different
types of center hub structure when and as desired,
thereby obviating the necessity of manufacturing and
storing each of a number of different types of
record-holders which principally vary from one another
only by the disk-mounting central hub structure.
Appellant contends (brief, page 31) that “Blanco desires and
teaches, and has no choice but to provide concentric spindle 46
with ridge 48 to hold the compact discs . . . [and that] [a]ny
effort to change that recessed spindle into a boss will do harm
to the Blanco device by preventing accommodation of the floppy
discs.” Why this is so is not apparent to us. Simply put, we
find nothing in Blanco which precludes the use of a hub
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007