Appeal No. 2006-1402
Application No. 10/788,543
Contrary to appellant’s arguments we find that Stefansky discloses a storage
media like that defined in claims 1 and 26 on appeal, wherein the storage media is
in the form of a “cartridge” and, more specifically, the form of a cartridge having a
tape cartridge form factor. Page 6 of appellant’s specification indicates that the
term ”disk cartridge” as used in the present application
means a hard disk memory medium enclosed within a cartridge shell
in a configuration which allows the disk cartridge unit to be easily
communicatively linked to, and communicatively unlinked from, a
host device such as a computer simply by placing the disk cartridge
into a docking device which acts as an intermediate interface between
the disk cartridge and the host device. That is, the disk cartridge of
the instant invention can be communicatively linked to another
device singly as a function of the placement and position of the disk
cartridge.
In our opinion, the disk drive of Stefansky in the form of a portable, plug-in
module falls within the broad definition of a “cartridge” provided in appellant’s
specification.
As for the disk cartridge having a tape cartridge form factor, we note that the
disclosure of Stefansky considered as a whole clearly evidences that the cartridge
therein meets this limitation also. Note particularly, the disclosure of Stefansky at
column 1 lines 56-60, where it is specifically noted that the single disk drive
therein “conforms to the dimensions of a tape cassette” (emphasis added), and at
column 3, lines 1-3, where it is unequivocally indicated that the hard disk drive
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007