Appeal No. 2002-2100
Application No. 09/042,334
temporary storing of calculated parity data in Wilkes’ memory
13 during parity calculation would satisfy the claimed
requirement. In our view, however, even assuming, arguendo, that
the temporary storing of calculated parity data in Wilkes’ memory
13 would satisfy the limitations of the appealed claims, there is
no indication from the disclosure of Wilkes that any such
temporary storing of calculated redundant parity data takes
place. To whatever extent the Examiner is asserting that such
temporary storing would necessarily occur, we find no evidence
forthcoming from the Examiner to support such a position. The
Examiner must not only make requisite findings, based on the
evidence of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which
the findings are deemed to support the asserted conclusion. See
In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433-34 (Fed.
Cir. 2002).
In view of the above discussion, in order for us to sustain
the Examiner’s rejection, we would need to resort to
impermissible 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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007