Appeal No. 2006-1622
Application No. 10/020,956
Thus, the Examiner's assertion that as the hub deforms radially (in
Iwahashi ‘826), both of the flanges deflect inwardly to the hub is sheer
speculation and finds no support in the portion cited by the Examiner (i.e.,
column 2, lines 1-17), nor any other part of the reference. [See Reply Brief
at p. 7]
As to the examiner’s original premise that given sufficient force, the tape would
inherently deform the hub sufficiently to cause the deflection of the flanges as claimed,
the examiner has shown no evidence that such force would be present in operation of
the tape reel, let alone that such force would be present before the tape would break, in
the hub as used in Iwahashi or its described prior art. This structural feature, of
designing the flexing of the hub so that such deformation may occur during operation, is
precisely the structural characteristic described as being provided by the claimed
means. In this regard, the appellant’s specification explains:
In order to keep the distances H3 and H4 always within the certain
range, rigidity of the hub 11, manner of fixing the upper and the lower
flanges 12, 13 to the hub 11, material of the tape reel 10 and so on are
established. Preferably, the rigidity is determined by setting the thickness
T of the outer peripheral wall 11a, by setting shape and thickness of the
center part 11b and the support walls 11c and so on.
Wrapping torque for wrapping the magnetic tape 20 around the tape
reel 10 is also established so that the distances H3 and H4 may be always
within the certain range. [See Specification at p. 10]
As to the examiner’s argument in the answer that the prior art in Iwahashi described
such deflection of both flanges, we note that the appellant is correct in interpreting this
prior art as creating less strength near one of the flanges than the other, and would only
cause one flange to deflect, if it deflected at all. We further note that Iwahashi does not
explicitly recite such deflection, but this deflection was inferred by the examiner based
on its explicit description of hub deformation near one, but not both, of the flanges.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007