Ex parte Fujisawa

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 29, 1999

07979627 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 29, 1999)

Application for patent filed November 19, 1992,1
entitled (as amended) "Disc Cartridge With Clearance Groove,"
which claims the foreign filing priority benefit under
35 U.S.C. § 119 of Japanese Application 3-338026, filed
November 28, 1991.
- 1 -
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
_______________
Paper No. 28
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte HIROTOSHI FUJISAWA

Appeal No. 96-1036
Application 07/979,6271

ON BRIEF

Before JERRY SMITH, BARRETT, and TORCZON, Administrative
Patent Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 96-1036
Application 07/979,627
- 2 -
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the examiner's refusal to allow claims 1-5.
We reverse.
BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention is directed to a disc cartridge
that provides additional clearance for a shutter opening
means when the disc cartridge is positioned for recording
and/or reproducing within a recording and/or reproducing
apparatus.
Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A disc cartridge comprising:
a cartridge main body accommodating a disc and
having at least one aperture for radially exposing a
portion of the disc;
a shutter member movably mounted on the cartridge
main body for opening or closing the aperture;
a groove formed in the cartridge main body along
the direction of movement of the shutter member
parallel to the direction of insertion of the cartridge
main body into a recording and/or reproducing
apparatus, the groove receiving a shutter opening means
of the recording and/or reproducing apparatus adapted
for opening the shutter member; and
means for increasing a clearance between the
groove and the shutter opening means when the shutter
member is moved to open the aperture.
Appeal No. 96-1036
Application 07/979,627
- 3 -
The examiner relies on the following prior art
reference:
Saito 4,614,990 September 30,
1986
Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Saito. In the Examiner's Answer the
examiner entered a new ground of rejection by changing the
ground of the rejection from § 103 to § 102(b).
This case has been remanded to the examiner several
times for matters of form and procedure. We refer to the
Third Supplemental Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 23) (pages
referred to as "3dSEA__") (which incorporates in one place
the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 17), the [First]
Supplemental Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 19), and the
Second Supplemental Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 21)) for a
statement of the examiner's position. The Fourth
Supplemental Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 27) is essentially
the same as part of the Third Supplemental Examiner's
Answer. We refer to the Reply Brief (Paper No. 18) (pages
referred to as "RBr__") and the Second Reply Brief (Paper
Appeal No. 96-1036
Application 07/979,627
- 4 -
No. 24) (pages referred to as "2dRBr__") for a statement of
appellant's position.
OPINION
The examiner finds that figure 3 of Saito discloses a
gap 28 for receiving a shutter opening flange 64 and a
groove 20 which is wider than the gap 28 (3dSEA4-5).
Appellant argues that "Saito's FIG. 3 is in error and that,
although reference label 20 is shown on FIG. 3, a groove
corresponding to reference label 20 is not depicted in
FIG. 3" (RBr2). Appellant argues (RBr4-5) that the
alternate latch embodiment of figure 13B correctly shows the
groove 20 and that Saito describes at column 9, lines 12-17,
that parts in figure 13B which are the same as parts
previously described are identified by the same reference
numeral.
We are persuaded by appellant's explanation and agree
that figure 3 has an obvious drawing error and should show a
groove 20 as shown in figure 13B which is the same width as
the gap 28. Saito does not disclose that groove 20 is wider
than gap 28, nor is there any reason for the groove 20 to be
wider than the gap 28. Accordingly, Saito does not
Appeal No. 96-1036
Application 07/979,627
- 5 -
anticipate claims 1-5. The rejection of claims 1-5 is
reversed.
The examiner argues that figure 13B shows a different
embodiment than figure 3 and, therefore, figure 13B does not
indicate that figure 3 of Saito is in error (3dSEA7).
Appellant argues that "the mere presence of differences
[between figure 3 and figure 13B] does not mean that the
grooves must be different" (2dRBr6). We find that
figure 13B correctly shows the groove 20. The embodiment of
figures 13A and 13B differs from the embodiment of figures 2
and 3 only in that the keeper 210 is struck from a web
portion 17 of shutter 14' (instead of using an inwardly bent
end defining the keeper 21a as in figures 2 and 3) and the
latch 22' pivots on a pivot pin 23' and is biased by a
spring 24'b (instead of using a resilient one-piece latch 22
as in figures 2 and 3) (col. 9, lines 26-36). The different
structure of the latch and keeper does not change the shape
or width of the groove 20.
The examiner argues that "the lines shown in the
drawing are not precluded from illustrated [sic] two
Appeal No. 96-1036
Application 07/979,627
- 6 -
boundaries: the groove and the steps" (3dSEA7). We agree
with appellant's treatment of this argument at 2dRBr6-7.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-5 is reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF
PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
RICHARD TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-1036
Application 07/979,627
- 7 -
Philip M. Shaw, Jr.
LIMBACH & LIMBACH
2001 Ferry Building
San Francisco, CA 94111-4262