Appeal No. 2006-1402
Application No. 10/788,543
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims are:
Stefansky 5,329,412 Jul. 12, 1994
Kulakowski et al. 6,731,455 May 04, 2004
(Kulakowski) (filed Apr. 26, 2001)
Claims 21, 24, 26 through 28 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kulakowski in view of Stefansky.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full commentary regarding the above-noted
rejection and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant
regarding the rejection, we make reference to the answer (mailed October 27,
2005) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellant’s
brief (filed September 19, 2005) and reply brief (filed December 16, 2005) for the
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant’s specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
Concerning the rejection of claims 21, 24, 26 through 28 and 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the examiner urges that Kulakowski discloses a data storage
library per claimed invention that includes a plurality of storage areas for housing
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007