Appeal No. 96-1678
Application 08/322,731
result, rather than an enhancement of one arrangement in view of
the other. As to the examiner’s additional reliance on Salmela,
we have reviewed this reference but find nothing therein which
makes up for the deficiencies of Röder and Scheuter in this
regard. This constitutes a first reason necessitating reversal.
In addition, the examiner concedes that Röder does not
disclose means for lowering the air distributor 5-8 vertically,
as called for in claim 19. The examiner has taken the position,
however, that “[t]o movably dispose the air distributor 5-8 so
that it may be moved out of the operating position would have
been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art seeking
to facilitate maintenance and repair” (answer, page 6).
Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 must rest on a factual
basis. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 177-78
(CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968). In making such
a rejection, the examiner has the initial duty of supplying the
requisite factual basis and may not, because of doubts that the
invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded
assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in
the factual basis. Id. Here, the examiner has failed to advance
any factual basis to support the conclusion that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Röder
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007