Appeal No. 95-3119 Page 11
Application No. 08/089,810
be sufficient for one of ordinary skill 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 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 art. See, e.g., Grain Processing Corp. v. American
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007