Appeal No. 96-2686
Application 08/224,213
The structure of Oguchi which controls the movement of the
magnetic head 10 is very different from the slide 6 carrying
head 5 in Herleth. If one were to incorporate translatory
movement of Herleth into Oguchi's mechanism having head 10,
one would have to destroy the disclosed operation of Oguchi's
mechanism and redesign same to meet the invention of claim 1.
This would be tantamount to a reconstruction of a prior art
device using the teachings of the claimed invention. That is
not the test of obviousness. Therefore, the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness in his
rejection.
Thus the collective teachings of Oguchi and Herleth do
not support the rejection proposed by the examiner to reject
claim 1. Since claims 2 through 5 depend on claim 1, and also
grouped together with claim 1 in the brief [page 4], the above
evidence does not support the Examiner's rejection as to them.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007