Appeal No. 2001-0474
Application 09/001,117
observation at page 2 of the reply brief, based upon our own
study of the teachings and suggestions of Table 1 and its
associated text at column 6 of Gupta, that this reference is
"devoid of any mention of the length of attributes A-F. Thus,
even assuming attributes A-F disclose view tokens as recited in
the present claims, the combination of Gupta and Brown does not
disclose that 'all view tokens in said view hav[e] a uniform
length.'"
The earlier-noted portion of Gupta does not explicitly teach
that the attributes have uniform length. If such a feature is
implicit within Gupta, it has not been fully explained to us by
the examiner at pages 10 and 11 of the answer. We thus conclude
that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness within 35 U.S.C. § 103 of the subject matter set
forth in each independent claim on appeal.
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.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007