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 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007