Appeal No. 1999-1515
Application No. 08/451,719
have disclosures directed to the seamless transfer of
communication between base stations, either in the one-way
call system of Goeken ‘303, or the two-way call system of
Patsiokas. Goeken ‘766, on the other hand, is not concerned
with communication transfer between base stations, but rather
with completing a high-quality call with a single base station
without “hand-off.”
In view of the above, we are left to speculate why the
skilled artisan would employ any of the features of the
communication “hand-off” features of Goeken ‘303 or Patsiokas
in the system of Goeken ‘766. The only reason we can discern
is improper hindsight reconstruction of Appellants’ claimed
invention. 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, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968), reh’g denied, 390
U.S. 1000 (1968). Therefore, since the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness, the rejection
of independent claims 18, 24, 33, and 39, as well as claims
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007