Appeal No. 2002-0662 Page 4
Application No. 09/099,963
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 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).
With this as background, we analyze the prior art applied by the examiner in the
rejection of the claims on appeal.
Ayanoglu
Ayanoglu's invention relates to a navigation system for an automotive vehicle
and, more particularly, to an improvement for determining a navigation route from the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007