Appeal No. 2003-1153
Application No. 09/349,214
forward with evidence or argument shift to 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 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).
We note that claims 3 and 4 recite limitations "crash
classification mask" and "restraint deployment code" discussed
above due to their dependency. We further note that claim 3
recites additional limitations "an occupant classification mask"
and "restraint status code" in steps (a), (c), and (d).
We note that Kincaid teaches "[T]he predetermined criteria
include correct occupant position, collision verification or
safing, and collision severity" in column 2, lines 37-39.
However, we fail to find that Kincaid provides the missing
descriptive matter "crash classification mask" and "restraint
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007