Appeal 2007-0589
Application 09/852,959
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).
E. ANALYSIS
It is our view that the Examiner fails to show where all the claimed
elements appear in the cited combination of prior art references.
Specifically, it is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would
not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the invention as set
forth in claims 12, 13, 20, and 26. Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to claims 12, 13, 20, and 26, Appellants argue that both
Boulter and Internet Explorer fail to teach the generation of a web page in
only a requested human language (Br. 6). We agree.
First of all, we recognize that the Examiner acknowledges that Boulter
does not explicitly disclose “said request comprises data specifying a
requested human language, and generating comprise said new markup
language in only said requested human language” (Answer 4 and 7).
Therefore, the Examiner relies on Internet Explorer to teach the above noted
feature (Answer 5 and 7).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013