Appeal No. 2006-1402
Application No. 10/788,543
a plurality of hard disk drive (HDD) devices like those seen in Figure 1A of the
patent. The examiner goes on to note that Kulakowski is “silent as to the specifics
of the HDD having form factor in the shape of a tape cartridge” (answer, page 4).
To address that difference the examiner turns to Stefansky, urging that it discloses
a portable hard disk drive device wherein the housing can have the dimension of a
tape cartridge (col. 1, lines 55-61). From the disclosures pointed to in the applied
patents, the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention to have the housing
dimensions of Kulakowski’s HDD in Figure 1A coincide with the housing
dimensions of a magnetic tape cartridge, as taught by Stefansky, “since it has been
held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only
routine skill in the art” (answer, page 4). In addition, the examiner urges that it
would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided
Kulakowski’s HDD with a housing having the same dimension as a magnetic tape
housing “because such HDD cover had been known in the art, as demonstrated by
Stefansky ‘412.”
After a review of the applied patents, we agree with the examiner that Stefansky
teaches a hard disk drive cartridge having a tape cartridge form factor (see, e.g.,
col. 3, lines 1-3). In fact, it is our view that Stefansky actually anticipates
independent claims 1 and 26 on appeal, the only claims separately argued. More
specifically, it is clear to us that Stefansky teaches a storage media comprising a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007