Ex Parte WUJCIGA - Page 10




            Appeal No. 2002-0296                                                        Page 10               
            Application No. 09/248,553                                                                        


            obvious to an artisan.  However, this determination has not been supported by any                 
            evidence that would have led an artisan to arrive at the claimed invention.5                      


                   In our view, the only suggestion for modifying either Sersiron or Leopold in the           
            manner proposed by the examiner to meet the above-noted limitation stems from                     
            hindsight knowledge derived from the appellant's own disclosure.  The use of such                 
            hindsight knowledge to support an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is, of              
            course, impermissible.  See, for example, W. L. Gore and Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.,          
            721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S.                
            851 (1984).  It follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 and 3 to 6           
            under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.                                                                







                   5 Evidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to modify a reference may flow from the prior
            art references themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the
            nature of the problem to be solved, see Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568,
            1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996), Para-Ordinance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers Int'l., Inc., 73
            F.3d 1085, 1088, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 80 (1996), although
            "the suggestion more often comes from the teachings of the pertinent references," In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d
            1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998).  The range of sources available, however, does not
            diminish the requirement for actual evidence.  A broad conclusory statement regarding the obviousness of
            modifying a reference, standing alone, is not "evidence."  Thus, when an examiner relies on general
            knowledge to negate patentability, that knowledge must be articulated and placed on the record.  See In re
            Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342-45, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433-35 (Fed. Cir. 2002).  See also In re Dembiczak, 
            175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999).                                         






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007