Appeal No. 1999-1789
Application No. 08/920,652
ordinary skill would have found it obvious to alter the
applied prior art to make the modification suggested by
the Examiner. The only reason we can discern is improper
hindsight reconstruction of Appellants’ claimed
invention. In order for us to sustain the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we would need to resort
to speculation or unfounded assumptions or rationales to
supply deficiencies in the factual basis of the rejection
before us. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ
173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968),
reh’g denied, 390 U.S. 1000 (1968).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007