Appeal No. 1998-2096
Application No. 08/586,966
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 on 35 U.S.C. §
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).
The appellants’invention is directed to certain
improvements to the ground anchor disclosed in the Chandler
reference. Specifically, the invention is intended to reduce
the energy required to place the anchor at its optimum depth
in the ground. See the appellants’ specification, p. 1. To
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007