Ex parte AVITALL - Page 4

          Appeal No. 1998-1045                                                        
          Application 08/482,674                                                      

          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, 458 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               
           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                


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007