Appeal No. 2000-0545
Application 08/638,339
ordinary skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Only if this initial burden is met does the
burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellants. Oetiker,
977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ 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 arguments.” 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). With these principles in mind, we
commence review of the pertinent evidence and arguments of Appellant and Examiner.
Appellant argues that “[n]either Klosterman nor Beery disclose, teach or suggest,
the claimed channel number arbitration provided by the ‘memory for storing a user built
channel map comprising a plurality of user channel identifiers that have each been
assigned by the user to correlate to one of the channel numbers of the two or more
sources.’” Appeal Brief, page 5, lines 20-23. Appellant further argues that “neither of
these references teach or suggest the claimed mechanism for arbitrating among multiple
audio/video sources having overlapping channel number assignments.” Appeal Brief,
page 3, lines 27-30.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007