Appeal No. 97-4080
Application 08/432,079
additional implements for use in the manicuring operation”
(column 4, lines 27-31). In our view, it is just as likely
to assume that the cylindrical side wall of table 20 of
Carlson does not extend as a peripheral flange but merely
spans the distance between the top surface of table 20 and a
bottom surface of table 20 that provides support for the
drawers 27. At any rate, prima facie obviousness may not be
established with resort to speculation and assumptions. We
may not resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions, or
hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the
factual basis. See In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1582, 35
USPQ2d 1116, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Secondly, we agree with
appellants that the combination of Carlson and Kopmar is
based on impermissible hindsight. We see no teachings in the
references themselves that would have suggested their
combination to one of ordinary skill in the art. While the
table 20 of Carlson does have an overreaching member 30, the
table of Carlson is more or less permanently mounted on the
tubular member 22 to provide a lazy Susan function (column 4,
line 25). It is apparent that permanently mounting such a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007