Ex Parte Leber et al - Page 4


                  Appeal No. 2006-3138                                                                                     
                  Application No.  09/683,351                                                                              

                  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).  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