Appeal No. 1998-1773 Page 6
Application No. 08/609,303
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).
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 16-20 and reply brief,
pp. 1-7) that the applied prior art does not suggest the
subject matter set forth in the independent claims on appeal.
We agree.
Independent claim 25 requires "a pair of loops . . . for
receiving said exposed portion of said metallic shield . . .
so that said metallic shield can be bonded to said ground
member while said exposed portion is within said loop."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007