Appeal No. 96-1698
Application No. 07/926,098
In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA
1972). Furthermore, the conclusion that the claimed subject
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),
In re Lalu, 747 F.2d 703, 705, 223 USPQ 1257, 1258 (Fed. Cir.
1984); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986) and ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v.
Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed.
Cir. 1984).
Additionally, 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 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 in
the factual basis. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007