Ex parte MARIANT et al. - Page 4




          Appeal No. 1999-2029                                       Page 4           
          Application No. 08/431,360                                                  


          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, 458                  
          F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).  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 in the factual basis for the rejection.  See In                
          re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967),              
          cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968).                                         










Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007