Appeal No. 98-1183 Page 8
Application No. 08/352,513
The examiner determined (answer, p. 3) that "it would
have been obvious to have provided a free standing support in
lieu of using one's hand or the window sill in order to free
both hands to clean the window [of Prete]." Thereafter, the
examiner determined (answer, p. 4) that
[t]o have used the trestle of the British patent [Purves]
to prop open the window of Prete et al. when cleaning
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art, since the trestle is a general support and it is
generally recognized that windows would be propped when
applying a downward cleaning force on them.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 7, 8 and 10) that the
method steps set forth in claim 1 are not suggested by the
applied prior art. We agree. In that regard, the examiner
has not cited any evidence that would have led an artisan to
have tilted a sash from a tilt-in window to a point where the
sash rests upon and is supported by a free standing support in
the manner recited by claim 1. It is our view that the
examiner's determination of obviousness is based on
speculation, unfounded assumption and/or impermissible
hindsight reconstruction to supply the deficiencies in the
factual basis for the rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007