Appeal No. 1998-1930 Page 5
Application No. 08/517,183
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, 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). The test for obviousness
is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir.
1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981). Furthermore, the conclusion that the claimed
subject matter is 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007