Ex parte Fujishiro

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 18, 2000

08464150 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 18, 2000)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte TAKESHI FUJISHIRO
____________
Appeal No. 1998-0205
Application No. 08/464,150
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, FLEMING, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.
BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner’s final rejection of
Claims 5 and 8.
We affirm.
Appeal No. 1998-0205
Application No. 08/464,150
We note that the preliminary amendment filed June 5, 1995 (Paper No. 3) directed cancellation of1
Claims 1-4, but the amendment has not been formally entered. Also, appellant’s amendment filed December
22, 1995 (Paper No. 6) incorrectly directed amendment and re-entry of Claim “1.” Consistent with
appellant’s appendix of claims with the Brief, we take amended Claim “1” in the file wrapper to be Claim 5.
- 2 -
BACKGROUND
The invention is directed to a cassette holder moving mechanism for a magnetic video cassette
player/recorder. Claim 5 is reproduced below.1
5. A magnetic recording and reproduction apparatus having a main unit with a base chassis, and a
cassette holder defining front, rear, and opposite sides and adapted to hold a box-type cassette case
having a wound magnetic tape, comprising:
a slide chassis slidably provided in said main unit for holding said cassette holder such that said
cassette holder is capable of being vertically moved between an up position and a down position,
wherein said cassette holder remains substantially level while ascending and descending between said
up and down positions;
a first moving mechanism and a second moving mechanism which are operatively connected
between said cassette holder and said slide chassis and are disposed at respective opposite sides of
said cassette holder, wherein said first moving mechanism and said second moving mechanism guide
said cassette holder between said up and down positions while maintaining said cassette holder
substantially level;
connecting means for synchronously connecting said first and second moving mechanisms, and
ensuring that said cassette holder remains substantially level and substantially parallel to said slide
chassis, comprising:
a rack and a pinion engaging with said rack and provided at one end of each moving
mechanism; and
a connecting rod rotatably supported on said cassette holder and having said pinions mounted to both
ends of said connecting rod.
Appeal No. 1998-0205
Application No. 08/464,150
- 3 -
The examiner relies on the following references:
Park 4,757,400 Jul. 12, 1988
Kim 5,355,265 Oct. 11, 1994
(filed Jun. 19, 1992)
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to as depending from a rejected base claim. Earlier rejections of
Claim 9 have been withdrawn.
Rejections of Claims 5 and 8 remain for our review. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as being anticipated by Kim. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kim and Park.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 7), the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 14), the
Supplemental Answer (Paper No. 16), and the Second Supplemental Answer (Paper No. 18) for a
statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (Paper No. 13), the Reply Brief (Paper No. 15),
and the Second Reply Brief (Paper No. 17) for appellant’s position.
OPINION
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Kim. The examiner
contends that the claim reads on the structures of Kim as pointed out on pages 3 and 4 of the Answer.
Appellant submits two main arguments to the contrary. First, appellant submits that Kim “does
not disclose a cassette holder which ‘remains substantially level while ascending and descending
Appeal No. 1998-0205
Application No. 08/464,150
- 4 -
between said up and down positions,’ as expressly required by claim 5.” (Brief, page 5.) Second,
appellant argues that Kim “does not disclose the connecting means of the claimed invention.” (Id. at 7.)
The thrust of appellant’s first argument appears based on an erroneous reading of the reference.
On pages 5 and 6 of the Brief appellant argues that the reference “tilts” the housing for removal of the
magnetic tape. Appellant refers to Figure 1A of Kim and argues that “the Kim device is pivotably fixed
at the end opposite to the cassette opening.” (Brief, page 7.) “One end of the Kim housing is anchored
while the other is raised, to effectuate the open-by-tilting method.” (Reply Brief, page 3.) Appellant
does not point out where the structure for “fixing” or anchoring one end of the cassette holder 11 in
Kim is thought to exist.
Contrary to appellant’s interpretation, the written description of Kim, as at column 1, lines 21
through 22, refers to “lifting and lowering links 13a and 13b,” and the remainder of the disclosure
makes clear that the entire extent of cassette holder 11 is moved up and down. Compare Figure 1A
with Figure 1B -- the end of the cassette holder opposite from tape 10 is higher in Figure 1A. The
reference does not refer to cassette holder 11 as “tilting,” contrary to appellant’s implication. Kim
instead refers to the holder as being lifted and lowered.
To the extent appellant may argue that there is a certain degree of tilt during raising and
lowering of cassette holder 11 in the reference, we agree with the assessment. Figure 1A of the
Appeal No. 1998-0205
Application No. 08/464,150
- 5 -
reference shows a slight degree of tilt of the holder. The relevant issue is whether the claims distinguish
over the degree of tilt disclosed by the reference.
The word “substantially” has more than one distinct connotation, but one accepted meaning is
“being largely but not wholly that which is specified.” Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary,
1990. As such, “substantially” often finds use as a broadening term in claim drafting. Appellant does
not point to anything in the specification that discloses that the invention requires that the cassette holder
be absolutely, or near absolutely, level or parallel with the slide chassis. Appellant does not point to
anything in the specification that sets forth any range, narrow or otherwise, with respect to what may be
considered “substantially level,” or “substantially parallel to [the] slide chassis,” as the terms are used in
Claim 5.
We therefore consider the scope of Claim 5, with respect to the recitations “substantially level,”
and “substantially parallel to [the] slide chassis,” to include structures as shown in Figures 1A and 1B of
Kim. Claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution. See In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997);
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d
1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
We also find appellant’s second argument unconvincing. As set out on page 7 of the Brief,
appellant submits that “[t]he purpose of the housing shaft 14 and associated gears 14a and 13c, as
Appeal No. 1998-0205
Application No. 08/464,150
- 6 -
taught by Kim, is to rotate the appendage 20 90 degrees around the pivot 20a as shown in Figs. 4A
and 4B.” However, the examiner finds, as set forth for example on page 8 of the Answer, the
“purpose” of the shaft and gearing alleged by appellant is an ancillary function of the structures
disclosed by Kim, and indeed appellant discloses a similar ancillary function associated with the
disclosed “connecting means.”
As detailed in column 1 of Kim, a rack gear 13c is engaged with a connecting gear 14a of a
housing shaft 14 so that the links 13a and 13b are driven simultaneously. As shown in Figure 1C, Kim
discloses one end of shaft 14 with the associated rack and pinion assembly, with the other end of shaft
14 and the opposite rack and pinion assembly shown in Figures 1A and 1B. In Figures 1A and 1B,
gearing (without reference numerals) is shown at one end of lifting and lowering link 13a, apart from
rack and pinion assembly 13c and 14a. Comparison of Figures 1A, 1B, and 1C reveals that lifting and
lowering of cassette holder 11 is accomplished by transmission of driving force from one side (Figures
1A and 1B) to the other side (Figure 1C) by means of rotation of shaft 14. The shaft and associated
rack and pinion assemblies thus perform the function that appellant alleges is missing from the reference;
namely, as set forth in Claim 5, “ensuring that [the] cassette holder remains substantially level and
substantially parallel to [the] slide chassis.”
We add to the examiner’s findings by pointing out that Figures 1A, 1B, 1C, and 2 are
described as conventional structures, apart from Kim’s emphasis on the novel ancillary function of
Appeal No. 1998-0205
Application No. 08/464,150
- 7 -
Kim’s invention revealed in Figures 3, 4A, 4B, and 5. Appellant thus argues about a portion of Kim
that can be considered irrelevant to the instant anticipation rejection, since the conventional structures as
represented by Figures 1A, 1B, 1C, and 2 of Kim show all that is required by instant Claim 5.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Park. As
set forth in the Answer and the Supplemental Answer, the examiner finds there is express suggestion in
Park for providing a “damper means” as claimed. Park’s disclosure, particularly at column 4, lines 21
through 29, provides evidence of prior art recognition regarding the advantage of a “damper means” for
damping upward movement of cassette holders.
Appellant argues in the Brief (page 9) that the examiner relied on hindsight knowledge of
appellant’s disclosure for motivation to combine the references. We consider the allegation to be
factually incorrect. Appellant does not address the clear suggestion in Park for provision of a “damper
means.” To the extent appellant’s comments may allege that the artisan would not have combined the
teachings of the references because of perceived differences between the cassette loaders of Kim and
Park, appellant has not convincingly explained, nor provided evidence to show, that the allegation is
factual. As we have noted previously herein, appellant’s interpretation of Kim as disclosing a “tilting”
mechanism appears based on a flawed reading of the reference.
Since appellant has not shown either rejection to be in error, we sustain the Section 102
rejection of Claim 5 and the Section 103 rejection of Claim 8.
Appeal No. 1998-0205
Application No. 08/464,150
- 8 -
Appeal No. 1998-0205
Application No. 08/464,150
- 9 -
CONCLUSION
The rejections of Claims 5 and 8 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may
be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1998-0205
Application No. 08/464,150
- 10 -
HBB/caw
Appeal No. 1998-0205
Application No. 08/464,150
- 11 -
SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20037-3202