Appeal No. 2006-3231
Application No. 09/955,691
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, 178 (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).
Further, as pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope
of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362,
1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Therefore, we look to the express
language of independent claim 10.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013