Appeal No. 98-1183 Page 6
Application No. 08/352,513
to combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive
at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Rejections based
on § 103 must rest on a factual basis with these facts being
interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention
from the prior art. The examiner may not, because of doubt
that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation,
unfounded assumption or hindsight reconstruction to supply
deficiencies in the factual basis for the rejection. See In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967),
cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968).
With this as background, we analyze the prior art applied
by the examiner in the rejection of the claims on appeal.
Prete discloses a double-hung window assembly having
tilt-in sashes.
Purves discloses a collapsible trestle. As shown in
Figures 1-3, the trestle includes a vertical member (i.e.,
main body 7), a stand (i.e., bars 12, bars 14, rod 10 ), atb
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007