Appeal No. 1999-0887
Application No. 08/702,074
of Bemski, “ . . . the practical application of this invention
is restricted to single crystal silicon.” In view of the
above, we are left to speculate why the skilled artisan would
employ the single crystal silicon body teachings of Bemski in
the semiconductor device of Temple. 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).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007