Appeal No. 1999-1344
Application 08/364,718
is improper and accordingly merits reversal. In re Fine, 837
F.2d at 1074, 5 USPQ2d at 1598.
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments.
See Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444 ("In
reviewing the examiner's decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.").
Accordingly, we now consider the claims on appeal.
In traversing the Examiner's rejection of the claims, the
Appellant first argues that Beckman only discloses the
monitoring of head attitude and actually teaches the
suppression of the translatory position information from a
head sensor. Brief at page 6. Next, Appellant asserts that
there is no motivation to use sensed head translations with
eye monitoring to be found in Lewis or Beckman either alone or
in combination. Appellant argues that "[t]he speculations of
the Examiner with regard to providing greater accuracy and
enhanced control by using head translations do not come from
Lewis or Beckman but from the Examiner." Brief at page 6.
Additionally, Appellant asserts that Beckman and Lewis teach
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007