Appeal No. 95-3943
Application 08/050,318
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);
Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d
281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), and ACS Hosp. Sys.,
Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933
(Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Lalu, 747 F.2d 703, 705, 223 USPQ 1257,
1258 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Moreover, rejections based on § 103 must rest on a factual
basis with these facts being interpreted without hindsight recon-
struction of the invention from the prior art. The examiner
has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for the
rejection. The examiner may not, because of doubt that the
invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded
assumption or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007