Appeal No. 2006-0455 Page 12
Application No. 10/217,378
We turn next to claim 5. Appellant’s position (brief, page
15) is that Iwata does not teach or suggest a receptacle that
transports a disk to a means for reading the disc. We are not
persuaded by appellant’s argument because Mitsui discloses the
loading tray, and because the combined teachings of Mitsui and
Iwata, as we found, supra, would have taught orienting the disc
drive mechanism of Mitsui, including the loading tray, at an
angle from the vertical. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
We turn next to claim 6. Appellant’s position (brief, page
16) is to rely upon the dependency of claim 6 from claim 1, and
asserts that Iwata does not have a receptacle for transporting
the disc. We are not persuaded by appellant’s argument because
the receptacle, having a cavity for receiving the disc and
transporting the disc to the reading means, is taught by Mitsui,
see, e.g., figure 12. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
We turn next to claim 7. Appellant’s position (brief, page
16) is that Iwata does not disclose a receptacle that has a
cavity with a base having a vertex at a lower portion of the
cavity. From our review of the prior art, we find that neither
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007