Appeal No. 99-0633 Page 9
Application No. 08/880,247
conclusion. Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 must rest on
a factual basis. In making such a rejection, the examiner has
the initial duty of supplying the
requisite factual basis and may not, because of doubts that
the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded
assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies
in the factual basis. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154
USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968).
We have reviewed the teachings of Hines and we find that,
although Hines does disclose a folded mailing tag for use in
an identification device for attachment to a key ring, Hines
does not disclose or suggest provision of a slot in the folded
material "for cooperative alignment with said slot of said
endwall" as required by claim 1.
For the above reasons, we cannot sustain the examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1, or of claims 3 through 5
which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As independent claim 12 also recites an identification
system comprising a housing including an endwall having an
aperture therethrough and a foldable sheet "including a second
portion having an aperture therein aligned with said aperture
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007