Appeal No. 95-2665
Application 07/999,609
is not answered by the examiner in a persuasive manner in the
responsive arguments portion of the answer. The second question
at page 6 of the reply brief relates to Ma and its alleged
failure to address the simultaneous energization of both control
traces, a feature we also discussed earlier in this opinion.
Thus, the examiner appears to have failed to address the
substantive arguments raised by appellant in the brief and reply
brief as to certain claimed features and/or certain deficiencies
in the prior art relied upon. In order for us to sustain the
examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we would need to
resort to speculation or unfounded assumptions to supply
deficiencies in the factual basis of the rejections. 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).
This we decline to do. We cannot independently agree with the
motivation or rationale expressed by the examiner as a basis to
combine the respective teachings or suggestions of the prior art
relied upon to arrive at the claimed invention. Arima, as
argued, appears cumulative as to certain teachings over the other
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007