Ex Parte Deckers - Page 6




              Appeal No. 2005-2731                                                                          6                                       
              Application No. 10/656,040                                                                                                            


              As for the examiner’s comments bridging pages 6 and 7 of the answer, we agree with                                                    
              appellant’s responsive arguments found on pages 2 and 3 of the reply brief, which the                                                 
              examiner has chosen not to rebut. Moreover, in understanding the level of skill in the art,                                           
              we also note the patent to Ho-Geol Kim (U.S. 5,666,342) applied by the examiner in the                                                
              rejection of claims 45 and 46 under 35 U.S.C.                                                                                         
              § 103, which patent discloses a docking device or united tape and disc                                                                
              recording/reproducing device having a united inserting part, wherein the device is adapted                                            
              to receive and communicatively interact with both a tape cassette and an optical hard disc.                                           


              For the above reasons, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 45 under 35                                              
              U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as being based on a non-enabling disclosure.                                                             


              We next consider the examiner's rejection of claims 28, 37, 38 and 44 under 35 U.S.C.                                                 
              § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kulakowski in view of Stefansky.  In maintaining this                                             
              rejection the examiner urges that Kulakowski discloses a data storage library like that                                               
              claimed by appellant which is capable of handling tape cartridges or a combination of tape                                            
              and hard disk drive devices, but “is silent as to the specific of the HDD having form factor                                          
              in the shape of a tape cartridge” (answer, pages 3-4).  To address the noted difference the                                           
              examiner turns to Stefansky, urging that it discloses a portable hard disk drive (HDD)                                                
              cartridge that can have the dimension of a tape cartridge (col. 1, lines 21-47). From the                                             

















Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007