Appeal No. 2006-0455 Page 13
Application No. 10/217,378
reference teaches or suggests this feature. From the lack of any
response by the examiner to this argument of appellant, we find
that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of claim 7, The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
We turn next to claim 15. We cannot sustain the rejection
of claim 15 for the same reasons as we reversed the rejection of
claim 7. The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
We turn next to claim 19. Appellant’s position (brief,
pages 14 and 15, and reply brief, pages 3 and 4) is that the
prior art does not teach that the angle 2 maintains the optical
disc in the cavity, and that maintaining the disc in the slot is
not an issue for Iwata as it is for maintaining the optical disc
in the tray of Mitsui. We are not persuaded by appellant’s
assertion because Mitsui discloses the receiving tray having a
cavity for receiving the disc. As we stated, supra, upon
modifying the disc drive of Mitsui to be at an angle as taught by
Iwata, the entire disc drive of Mitsui, including the loading
tray, will be at the angle 2. Accordingly, the rejection of
claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007