Appeal No. 2002-0828
Application No. 09/475,126
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming
forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellants.
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See also Piasecki,
745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788.
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. "In
reviewing the [E]xaminer's decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument." In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. "[T]he Board must
not only assure that the requisite findings are made, based on
evidence of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which
the findings are deemed to support the agency's conclusion." In
re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir.
2002).
Claims 7, 14, 21, 28, 30-35 and 37-42 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Travelsavers in view
of Smithies. We note that the Examiner is relying on
Travelsavers for the teaching of allocating commissions based
solely upon the value of said sales delivered to each of the
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007