Appeal No. 2006-1402
Application No. 10/788,543
has “the form factor of a tape cassette” including 0.6 inch height. Thus, in contrast
to appellant’s arguments (e.g., brief, page 6), Stefansky clearly indicates that the
disk drive cartridge therein has more than only one dimension (i.e., height) of a
tape cartridge.
Regarding appellant’s contention that Stefansky’s hard disk cartridge is not
“suitable for use with a mechanical picker,” we see no reason why a mechanical
picker (e.g., a robotic gripper that removes the final disk drive cartridges from a
production line conveyor belt) could not grasp the sides of the housing or cartridge
shell and move Stefansky’s hard disk cartridge from one location to another,
without damage to the printed circuit board (14). Moreover, given that both
appellant’s hard disk drive cartridge and that of Stefansky each have a “tape
cartridge form factor,” we fail to see how appellant’s cartridge could be “suitable
for use with a mechanical picker,” if that of Stefansky were not.
While we might agree with appellant’s argument that there is nothing in either
Kulakowski or Stefansky which would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify the dual-ended hard disk drive cartridge (2) seen in Figure 1A of
Kulakowski to necessarily have a tape cartridge form factor, we note that
Kulakowski specifically indicates that the hard disk drives (58) used therein can
be either the dual-ended version or other hard disk drives known in the art (see, for
example, col. 5, lines 35-39, and col. 6, lines 10-15).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007