Appeal No. 2000-1922
Application No. 08/806,494
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), rehearing denied, 390
U.S. 1000 (1968).
Accordingly, since we are of the opinion that the prior art
applied by the Examiner does not support the obviousness
rejection, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims
1 and 5, nor of claims 3, 7, 9, and 10 dependent thereon.
Therefore, the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007