Appeal No. 1998-1919 Page 10
Application No. 08/620,993
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).
Claims 3, 4, 16-23 and 33-39
With respect to claims 3, 4, 16-23 and 33-39, the
examiner determined (first Office action, p. 3) that it would
have been obvious to provide Ursrey with an interchangeable
battery case to install new batteries as the present batteries
expire.
The appellant argues (brief, p. 4) that Ursrey does not
suggest interchangeable containers for any purpose.
The examiner responded to this argument (answer, p. 4) by
stating that
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007