Ex parte Hirata

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 20, 1998

07974209 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 20, 1998)

Application for patent filed November 11, 1992. 1
-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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCE
_____________
Ex parte HIDETOSHI HIRATA
____________
Appeal No. 96-0494
Application 07/974,2091
____________
HEARD: February 5, 1998
____________
Before URYNOWICZ, BARRETT and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of Claims 1-
3, which constitute all the claims remaining in the application.
Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A magnetic tape cassette comprising:
Appeal No. 96-0494
Application 07/974,209
-2-
a cassette case comprising upper and lower cassette
halves defining therebetween a front surface opening;
a pair of tape winding members rotatably supported
within said case;
a magnetic tape wound around said members;
a guard panel for covering said front surface opening,
said guard panel including two side plates at opposite ends
thereof;
two support shafts provided, respectively, on said two
side plates of said guard panel for rotatably mounting said guard
panel to said case; and
a rib provided on one of said two side plates as an
integrally molded part of said one of said two side plates, said
rib having a thickness smaller than a thickness of said one of
said two side plates and extending along an edge surface of said
one of said two side plates, said rib having an inner surface
with faces toward a central portion of said case and an outer
surface which faces away from said central portion, said rib
projecting from said one of said two side plates so that said rib
is received in a gap formed on a side of said case adjacent to
said one of said two side plates, said gap conforming in size and
shape to said rib and having an opposing surface which opposes
said outer surface to thereby restrict lateral movement of said
guard panel when said guard panel covers said front surface
opening.
The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art:
Tanaka 4,933,796 Jan. 12, 1990
Eggebeen 4,989,806 Feb. 5, 1991
OPINION
Claim 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Eggebeen.
Appeal No. 96-0494
Application 07/974,209
-3-
The claimed invention relates to a magnetic tape
cassette with a rotatably mounted guard panel. A gap or stepped
portion on either the cassette or the guard panel conforms in
size and shape to a rib on the other of the cassette and guard
panel. The gap or stepped portion opposes the rib to restrict
lateral movement of the guard panel in the closed position.
The examiner concedes that Tanaka fails to disclose a
stepped portion conforming in size and shape to rib 20al but
contends that it was known in the art to utilize matching
protrusions and recesses for controlling the movement of adjacent
members. Eggebeen is cited as an example of such well known
matching protrusions 72 and recesses 74. Examiner’s Answer at 4-
5. The examiner further concedes that Tanaka’s rib restricts
lateral movement only when the panel is at an open position, not
at a closed position as claimed, but contends that it would have
been obvious to restrict the closed position in order to avoid
detachment of the guard panel. Examiner’s Answer at 3-4.
Appellant argues that there is no suggestion to combine
the references in the manner proposed by the examiner. Appeal
Brief at 6.
We agree with appellant.
Appeal No. 96-0494
Application 07/974,209
-4-
Tanaka uses protrusion 20a1 to restrict the guard panel
only when the guard panel is open. In the closed position,
Tanaka elastically deforms the guard panel in place. Column 5,
line 62 through column 6, line 42. The examiner identifies no
suggestion in the prior art to alter Tanaka’s arrangement in the
recited manner.
Tanaka’s side arm portion 17b climbs protrusion 20a1.
Tanaka does this intentionally in order to maintain stably the
guard member’s position. Column 6, lines 30-42. This is in
contradistinction to the recited arrangement in which a gap
receives a protruding rib. Whereas Tanaka climbs over a
protrusion and presumably deforms the guard panel in the process,
appellants instead receive the protrusion in a mating gap. The
examiner offers no motivation for changing Tanaka’s climbing
arrangement to appellant’s mating arrangement. Eggebeen’s tongue
72 does not conform in size and shape to groove 74 and is not
used for a rotatable guard plate. Column 4, lines 45-68.
The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the
manner suggested by Examiner does not make the modification
obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d
1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In the present case, as
Appeal No. 96-0494
Application 07/974,209
-5-
pointed out by appellant at oral argument, the examiner has not
identified in the prior art any suggestion to rearrange Tanaka’s
rib so that it mates with a gap when the guard panel is closed.
Without establishing such a suggestion, the rejection cannot be
sustained.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of Claims 1-3 is not sustained.
REVERSED
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, Jr. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-0494
Application 07/974,209
-6-
Sughrue, Mion, Zinn, Macpeak & Seas
2100 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20037-3202