Ex Parte Gormley - Page 4


                   Appeal No. 2006-3096                                                                                              
                   Application No. 10/116,676                                                                                        

                   sufficient for one 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 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, 177 (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-                        
                   Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907, 5 USPQ2d 1788, 1792 (Fed. Cir. 1988).                                              
                           When determining obviousness, “the [E]xaminer can satisfy the burden of                                   
                   showing obviousness of the combination ‘only by showing some objective teaching in the                            
                   prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art would                         
                   lead that individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references.’”  In re  Lee, 277                      
                   F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002), citing In re Fritch,                                      
                   972 F.2d 1260, 1265, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992).  “Broad conclusory                                    
                   statements regarding the teaching of multiple references, standing alone, are not                                 
                   ‘evidence.’”  In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir.                                 
                   1999). “Mere denials and conclusory statements, however, are not sufficient to establish a                        
                   genuine issue of material fact.”  Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 999-1000,                                                
                   50 USPQ2d at 1617, citing McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 995 F.2d 1576,                                 
                   1578, 27 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1993).                                                                      



                                                                 4                                                                   



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007