Appeal No. 2002-2107 Page 4
Application No. 09/160,085
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 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).
Claim 1
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 1 reads as follows:
A freely hanging and independently portable supply rack comprising:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007