Appeal No. 2000-0374
Application No. 08/686,526
to independently conclude that such a combination “would” have
been obvious within 35 U.S.C. § 103 to the artisan. Based on
the evidence provided in this appeal, we cannot agree
with the examiner’s views.
Appellant’s claimed invention, Kato and Yamashita each
achieve the same goal of tilting the pickup by different
means.
Since we cannot sustain the rejection of independent
claim
1 and its dependent claim 3 based upon the collective
teachings and showings of Kato in view of Yamashita, we must
also reverse the rejection of dependent claim 2 further in
view of Sakashita.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007