Appeal No. 2000-0291
Application 08/873,958
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, 177 (CCPA 1967),
cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968). Our reviewing court has
repeatedly cautioned against employing hindsight by using the
appellant's disclosure as a blueprint to reconstruct the
claimed invention from the isolated teachings of the prior
art. See, e.g., Grain Processing Corp. v. American
Maize-Products Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907, 5 USPQ2d 1788, 1792
(Fed. Cir. 1988).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007