Appeal No. 2000-1841 Application 09/016,738 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. Id. As correctly pointed out by the appellants (see page 18 in the main brief), neither Shook nor Brown teaches or suggests a box-boom lift arm having a first extension and a second extension spaced apart to define a first lever space therebetween and a rear tilt lever that extends through the first lever space. The examiner’s attempt to rationalize these deficiencies away constitutes a classic case of hindsight reconstruction predicated on speculation and unfounded assumptions as to what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 and 9, or of dependent claims 4, 8, 10 and 13 through 17, as being unpatentable over Shook in view of Brown. 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007