Appeal No. 97-3007 Page 5
Application No. 08/161650
the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima
facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007