Appeal No. 1998-0158 Page 6
Application No. 08/427,587
With these in mind, we address the following issues:
• obviousness over Yohda in view of Nanba
• obviousness over Yohda in view of Takeshita.
We first address the obviousness of the claims over Yohda in
view of Nanba.
Obviousness over Yohda in view of Nanba
The appellants make the following argument.
[T]he Examiner is completely changing the method of
Yohda to one that is not close to being that
disclosed by Yohda. There is insufficient
motivation to do so from JP 93028 [i.e., Nanba], as
the reference recognizes no problem in the process
of Yohda, and suggests no significant advantage to
employing the method of JP 93028 .... (Appeal Br.
at 18.)
The examiner replies, “the Difference section suggested
deformation of a specified part of the head plate in order to
adjust the position of a head mounted at the end of a head
base ....” (Examiner’s Answer at 7.)
The examiner misconstrues the criteria for combining
references. “Obviousness may not be established using
hindsight or in view of the teachings or suggestions of the
inventor.” Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007