Appeal No. 2000-0581
Application No. 08/429,155
outer surface will lie within the plane of the drum's
periphery and in which position the associated slot is not
closed off but still retains a sufficient opening for ejection
of a document therefrom (column 5, lines 30-40).
While the deflectors 71 of Poland are resiliently mounted
to the discs 60, Poland gives no express indication that they
are replaceably mounted thereto, as the examiner's rejection
suggests. Moreover, the examiner's basis for concluding that
the deflector tip mounting arrangement (71-73) disclosed by
Poland would ease maintenance is not apparent to us. In any2
event, we perceive in the combined teachings of Breton and
Poland no teaching or suggestion to provide resiliently
mounted blade tips as taught by Poland on the blades of any of
the fan arrangement embodiments of Breton.
The examiner apparently finds no teaching or suggestion
of an aligning means, on either the blade or blade tip as
called for in the claims, in the combined teachings of Breton
Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 must rest on a factual basis. In2
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, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057
(1968).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007