Appeal No. 96-1823
Application No. 08/187,521
in the relevant art having the references before him to make the
proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 9
F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). Furthermore, the
conclusion that the claimed subject matter is prima facie
obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown by some objective
teaching in the prior art or by knowledge generally available to
one of ordinary skill in the art that would have led that
individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references to
arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Rejections based on
§ 103 must rest on a factual basis with these facts being
interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention
from the prior art. The examiner may not, because of doubt that
the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded
assumption or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in
the factual basis for the rejection. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d
1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S.
1057 (1968). Our reviewing court has repeatedly cautioned
against employing hindsight by using the appellant's disclosure
as a blueprint to reconstruct the claimed invention from the
isolated teachings of the prior art. See, e.g., Grain Processing
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007