Appeal No. 2005-2731 8
Application No. 10/656,040
with appellant’s further assessment that there is no teaching or disclosure in Kulakowski or
Stefansky of a data storage library that includes both forms of storage media required in
claim 28 on appeal, or of a docking device in communicative linkage with a host device
that is capable of receiving and interacting with both forms of data storage media set forth
in claim 28. The examiner’s finding that Kulakowski (col. 11, lines 21-47) discloses those
aspects of the claimed invention is not well founded. In our view, the somewhat expansive
and cryptic commentary at column 11, lines 21-47, of Kulakowski fails to reasonably teach
or suggest use of two different forms of data storage media in a single automated library
system and provides no teaching or disclosure regarding a docking device like that
specifically required in claim 28 on appeal. Nor does anything in Stefansky make up for
those deficiencies in the disclosure of Kulakowski.
Thus, for the reasons set forth above, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claim 28, or of claims 37, 38 and 44 which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Regarding the rejection of claims 45 and 46 under 35 U.S.C.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007