Appeal No. 2000-0258 Page 8
Application No. 08/577,897
suggestion to modify each of the remaining system components to
also isolate its circuitry from the system interconnect as
required by each of the independent claims. To find that each of
the modules isolates its circuitry we would have to resort to
speculation, which we decline to do. The examiner may not resort
to speculation or unfounded assumptions to supply deficiencies in
establishing a factual basis. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011,
1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967). From all of the above,
find that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness of the claimed invention recited in independent
claims 1, 7, and 12. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 7,
and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 2-6 and 8-11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Herrig in view of Ady and
Madonna. Upon review of the teachings of Madonna, we reverse the
rejection of claims 2-6 and 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because
Madonna does not make up for the deficiencies of the basic
combination of Herrig and Ady.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007