Appeal No. 1997-0199
Application No. 08/199,480
would have relevance to the tire parameter sensing and
monitoring system of Higgs, or for that matter, the tire
parameter monitoring system of Bowler. None of the problems
sought to be overcome by Dunn would be expected to exist in
the tire parameter monitoring system of Higgs or Bowler.
Further, the systems of Higgs and Bowler obviate the need for
Dunn’s remote interrogation by either providing for
transmission on sensing of an abnormality (Higgs) or for
periodic transmission of stored sensed values (Bowler). In
view of the above, we are left to speculate why the skilled
artisan would employ the tire mounting or remote interrogation
features of Dunn in Higgs and/or Bowler. The only reason we
can discern is improper hindsight reconstruction of
Appellants’ claimed invention. In order for us to sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we would need to
resort to speculation or unfounded assumptions or rationales
to supply deficiencies in the factual basis of the rejection
before us. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173,
178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968), rehearing
denied, 390 U.S. 1000 (1968). Accordingly, since the Examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness, the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007