Appeal No. 2003-0428
Application 09/116,564
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.” 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). With
theses principles in mind, we commence review of the pertinent
evidence and arguments of Appellant and Examiner.
Appellant argues that Mantha does not disclose or suggest
“parsing a document for a first reference locator that references
an object in a first file system; determining a second reference
locator that references a target location in a second file
system; placing a copy of the object at the target location in
the second file system; and replacing the first reference locator
in the document with the second reference locator” as required by
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007