Appeal No. 1999-2094 Page 6
Application No. 08/517,198
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, 178 (CCPA
1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968).
With this as background, we note that the teachings of
the applied prior art (i.e., Mottino, Vanzant and Will) are
adequately set forth on pages 6-10 of the brief.
Claim 21
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
After the scope and content of the prior art are
determined, the differences between the prior art and the
claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Based on our analysis and review of Mottino and claim 21,
it is our opinion that the only difference is the limitation
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007