Appeal No. 97-1439 Page 8
Application No. 08/417,981
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
disclosure as a blueprint to reconstruct the claimed invention
from the isolated teachings of the prior art. See, e.g., Grain
Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Products Co., 840 F.2d 902,
907, 5 USPQ2d 1788, 1792 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
With this as background, we turn to the examiner's § 103
rejections of the claims on appeal.
Claims 1 through 4, 6, 7, and 11 through 13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007