Appeal No. 1999-2062 Page 8
Application No. 08/928,311
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). 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).
In addition, in determining obviousness/nonobviousness,
an invention must be considered "as a whole," 35 U.S.C. § 103,
and claims must be considered in their entirety. Medtronic,
Inc. v. Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc., 721 F.2d 1563, 1567, 220
USPQ 97, 101 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Thus, to establish prima facie
obviousness of a claimed invention, all the claim limitations
must be taught or suggested by the prior art. In re Royka,
490 F.2d 981, 180 USPQ 580 (CCPA 1974). "All words in a claim
must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007