Appeal No. 1998-2808
Application No. 08/733,464
A 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 § 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). Our reviewing court has repeatedly cautioned
against employing hindsight by using the appellants’
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
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007