Appeal No. 1996-3167 Page 13
Application No. 07/974,834
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a case of obviousness.
See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956
(Fed. Cir. 1993). A case of 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, 458
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
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007