Appeal No. 2005-1278 Page 21
Application No. 10/145,226
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 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). Our reviewing court has repeatedly cautioned against employing
hindsight by using the appellant's 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 F.2d 902, 907, 5 USPQ2d 1788, 1792 (Fed. Cir.
1988).
In the obviousness rejections before us in this appeal, the examiner (final
rejection, p. 4) ascertained that Jacques '420 discloses the invention except for the ribs
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007