Appeal No. 1999-0261
Application No. 08/703,496
desirability of the modification. In re Fritch, 972 F. 2d
1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We are further of the opinion that even assuming,
arguendo, that proper motivation were established for the
Examiner’s proposed modification of Herrig, the resulting
system would fall far short of meeting the specific
requirements of the claims on
appeal. As pointed out by Appellants (Brief, page 6), the
transmission of a control signal by actuation of a switch on
the circuit board module in Herrig occurs before the pausing
of bus communication not after the bus communication pausing
as set forth in the appealed claims. Further, we find in
Herrig no transmission of a shutdown signal from a first
device to a third device to eliminate power to a slot assigned
for the removal or insertion of a second device. In order for
us to sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
we would need to resort to speculation or unfounded
assumptions or rationales to supply deficiencies in the
factual basis of the rejection before us. In re Warner, 379
F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007