Ex Parte Cundiff - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2006-0455                                        Page 2          
          Application No. 10/217,378                                                  

          (specification, page 1).                                                    
          Claim 1 is representative of the invention, and is reproduced as            
          follows:                                                                    
               1. An optical drive comprising:                                        
               means for reading an optical disc; and                                 
               means for receiving an optical disc to be transported to               
          said means for reading an optical disc, wherein said means for              
          receiving is oriented off-axis at an angle › that is an acute               
          angle from a vertical axis to maintain said optical disc within             
          said means for receiving and wherein said means for reading is              
          oriented off said vertical axis at said angle › during operation            
          thereof.                                                                    
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Mitsui et al               5,930,218                Jul. 27, 1999           
          Iwata                     JP63271754                Nov.  9, 1988           
               Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being           
          unpatentable over Mitsui in view of Iwata.                                  
               Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being           
          unpatentable over Mitsui.                                                   
               Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by           
          the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted                    
          rejections, we make reference to the answer (mailed July 27,                
          2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the               
          rejections, and to the brief (filed June 2, 2005) and reply brief           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007