Appeal No. 2006-1402
Application No. 10/788,543
housing having a tape cartridge form factor (col. 3, lines 1-3) suitable for use with
some form of mechanical picker, a hard disk drive (HDD) contained within the
housing, and a cartridge interface (15) coupled to the HDD and adapted to
removably connect the HDD storage media to a docking device, as defined in
claim 1 on appeal. As for claim 26, we note that the storage media of Stefansky
includes an exterior cartridge shell (10, 12) shaped to have a tape cartridge form
factor (col. 3, lines 1-3), the cartridge shell adapted to be gripped and moved by a
robotic gripper to connect with a docking device, a hard disk (24) contained within
the cartridge shell, and a cartridge interface (15) coupled with the hard disk and
adapted to connect to a docking device and communicatively link with a host
device.
On the basis of the foregoing, we will sustain the rejection of independent
claims 21 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kulakowski
in view of Stefansky, noting that anticipation or lack of novelty is the ultimate or
epitome of obviousness. See, in that regard, In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794,
215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ
641, 644 (CCPA 1974). As for claims 24, 27, 28 and 31, we note that appellant
has chosen not to argue the separate patentability of those claims apart from the
parent claim from which they depend. Thus, those claims will fall with their
respective parent claim.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007