Appeal No. 1998-2591 Page 8
Application No. 08/636,304
width wider than the recording track width ...." (Examiner's
Answer at 5.) The appellant argues, "Takayama and Hasegawa do
not suggest playback heads which have a width wider than the
width of a recording head." (Appeal Br. at 15.)
Claims 1-21 specify in pertinent part the following
limitations: "playback heads in said plurality of playback
head pairs have a track width wider than the track width of
the recording heads ...." Accordingly, the claims require
that the track width of playback heads is wider that of
recording heads.
The examiner fails to show a suggestion of the
limitations in the prior art. “Obviousness may not be
established using hindsight or in view of the teachings or
suggestions of the inventor.” Para-Ordnance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS
Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237,
1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 822
(1996)(citing W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983),
cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984)). “It is impermissible to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007