Appeal No. 2001-0292
Application No. 29/076,553
considered in light of the bottom view shown in Figure 2 and the top plan shown in Figure
5 as well as the right side-left side mirror image in Figure 3.
Based on the applied prior art and considering it in the best light towards the
examiner’s basic views, we cannot sustain the rejection because we remain uncertain from
our study of the applied prior art the exact manner in which a corresponding front
perspective view similar to Figure 1 of the claimed design would appear. There is no
clarifying corresponding front perspective view among the various Figures clearly showing
this aspect of the design in Lusker.
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 to supply deficiencies in the
factual basis of the rejections. 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).
This we decline to do.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007