Appeal No. 97-2963 Page 7
Application No. 08/284,728
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 to
13 and 22 to 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Lippert. Likewise, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection
of claims 15 to 19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lippert in view of Roessler.
Obviousness is established by presenting evidence that the
reference teachings would appear to 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007