Appeal No. 1999-2370 Page 6
Application No. 08/890,744
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 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).
Claim 25 reads as follows:
A bolt (54) comprising:
a head(541);
a threaded section (542) concentric with the
head(541) and having a diameter greater than the head
(541);
a flange (55) disposed between the head (541) and
the threaded section (542), the flange (55) having a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007