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