Appeal No. 97-3194 Page 20
Application No. 08/442,816
basis for the examiner to conclude that coating 40 is a
"bubble wrap" material since "bubble wrap" is a well known
material. Second, the examiner's determination that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place
the plastic coating 40 of Johnson over the lock housing also
lacks the necessary evidentiary basis. In that regard, 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,
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007