Ex Parte Ostwald et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 26, 2002

09354814 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 26, 2002)

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not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the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. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte TIMOTHY C. OSTWALD and DANIEL JAMES PLUTT
__________
Appeal No. 2001-2664
Application 09/354,814
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before ABRAMS, PATE, and NASE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PATE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 28 and 30 through 33. These are the only claims
remaining in the application. We note that it appears from the
examiner’s answer, that the examiner has included claim 29 in the
rejection. However, claim 29 was canceled in paper no. 5, filed
November 27, 2000.
The claimed invention is directed to a system for moving a
plurality of cartidges between a plurality of storage libraries.
Appeal No. 2001-2664
Application 09/354,814
-2-
The system includes at least one transport robot operative to
move along a guide structure between the libraries.
Reference is made to the appealed claims appended to
appellant’s brief for further details with respect to the claimed
subject matter.
The reference of record relied upon by the examiner as
evidence of anticipation is:
Moy et al. (Moy) 4,928,245 May 22, 1990
REJECTION
Claims 1 through 28 and 30 through 33 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Moy.
According to appellant claims 1 through 28 and 30 through 33
stand or fall together. Accordingly, we will limit our
consideration to independent claim 1 on appeal.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claimed subject matter in
light of the arguments of the appellants and the examiner. As a
result of this review, we have reached the finding that the
claims on appeal lack novelty over the applied prior art.
Accordingly, the rejection of the claims on appeal is affirmed.
Our reasons follow.
Appeal No. 2001-2664
Application 09/354,814
-3-
As held in In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d
1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997):
the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims
the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their
ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that
may be afforded by the written description contained in
the applicant's specification.
The appellants’ specification provides only general guidance as
to the proper interpretation of the claim term “library” as it
appears in the claims on appeal. According to appellants,
Automated data cartridge library systems are available
in many shapes and sizes. The most common library
systems are configured as either a two-dimensional
array of storage cells that resemble bookshelves, or a
cylinder of storage cells that resemble farm silos.
(Specification, page 1)
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that “each and
every element as set forth in the claim is found, either
expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949,
1950 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil
Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
Appeal No. 2001-2664
Application 09/354,814
-4-
Moy discloses a system for moving a plurality of cartridges
between a plurality of cylindrical arrays. Moy discloses a guide
structure comprising an arm assembly 138 between first and second
cylindrical arrays 130 and 134. Col.8, line 63. The guide
structure includes an arm 142 which mounts column 144 on which
robotic wrist assembly moves for loading and unloading the
storage cells of the cylindrical arrays. Thus, the robot can be
said to move along a guide structure column 144. The examiner
further finds that the storage cells 132 being open to the robot,
thus comprise load ports through which cartridges can be placed
in the various storage cells.
Appellants argue that Moy discloses only a single library
and not multiple libraries as claimed in claim 1 on appeal. The
examiner argues that a library is merely a collection of similar
articles kept in one area and the LSM 108 of Moy should be
considered as a plurality of libraries. We note that appellants
expressly state in their specification that a library system may
be a cylinder of storage cells that resemble a farm silo. Even
if we were not according the claim language its broadest
reasonable interpretation, we agree with the examiner’s finding
that the LSM 108 of Moy, which clearly shows two concentric
Appeal No. 2001-2664
Application 09/354,814
-5-
cylinders (130 and 134) of storage cells 132, is a plurality of
libraries as the appellants have defined the term on page 1 of
the specification.
Consequently, we concur in the examiner’s findings of fact
that appellants’ representative claim 1 lacks novelty over the
Moy disclosure. The rejection on appeal is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED

NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
WILLIAM F. PATE, III )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
WFP:pgg
Appeal No. 2001-2664
Application 09/354,814
-6-
Timothy P. Schulte
Storage Technology Corp.
2270 South 88th Street, MS 4309
Louisville, CO 80028-4309