Appeal No. 1999-2797
Application No. 08/609,875
proper motivation were established for modifying Posso with Kuga,
there is no indication as to how such modification would address
the particulars of the claim language of independent claim 1,
which requires a specific interaction of the operation of the
first and second manual control members to implement the claimed
scroll enable and disable modes. 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), rehearing denied, 390
U.S. 1000 (1968).
Accordingly, since the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness, the rejection of independent claim 1,
and claims 2-5 dependent thereon, based on the combination of
Posso and Kuga is not sustained.
As to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of dependent claims 6,
7, 9, and 10 based on the combination of Posso, Kuga, and Macor,
we note that Macor was applied solely to address the display
series and remote control unit features of these claims. Macor,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007