Appeal No. 2006-1622
Application No. 10/020,956
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (mailed March 31, 2005) and supplemental answer (mailed January 10, 2006)
for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellant's brief and affidavit (filed
January 10, 2005) and first reply brief (filed May 25, 2005) and second reply brief (filed
January 31, 2006) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations that follow.
Claims 1-3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Iwahashi.
We note that the appellant argues these claims as a group. Accordingly, we select
claim 1 as representative of the group.
The examiner argues that the means element of claim 1 is met in Iwahashi by the
force of the tape on the hub. Specifically, the examiner states that Iwahashi shows that
the
means for gradually decreasing a distance between said upper flange
(17) and said Iower flange outside an outer peripheral surface of the hub,
as said magnetic tape is being wrapped around said hub (when the
magnetic tape wrapping force in a radial direction is so great that both the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007