Appeal No. 98-0363
Application 08/740,389
plunger would only happen accidently.
[Column 5, lines 36-44.]
From the above, the artisan would reasonably infer that the T-
heads and guides cooperate to prevent pivoting or tilting of
the screen. While the examiner speculates that (from the
illustration in Fig. 8) the "T-head 48 is spaced far enough
away from the bottom of the U-shaped channel [assemblies] 50
so as to permit rotation of bar 45" (answer, page 5), we must
point out that a "rejection based on section 103 must clearly
rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted
without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the
prior art. . . . [The examiner] may not . . . resort to
speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction
to supply deficiencies in . . . [the] . . . factual basis."
In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA
1967). In any event, regardless of whether the tolerances in
the guiding structure of Golkowski are sufficient to allow an
incidental amount of pivoting or tilting of the screen, there
is absolutely nothing in Golkowski which either teaches or
suggests the desirability of providing for a "means for
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007