Appeal No. 97-0990 Page 6
Application No. 08/105,093
1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie
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, 9 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).
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
deficiencies in the factual basis for the rejection. See In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967), cert.
denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968). Our reviewing court has repeatedly
cautioned against employing hindsight by using the appellant's
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007