Appeal No. 2001-0326
Application 09/007,138
1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir.1996), Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers
Intern., Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1088, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1240 (Fed.
Cir. 1995), although "the suggestion more often comes from the
teachings of the pertinent references," Rouffet, 149 F.3d at
1355, 47 USPQ2d at 1456. The range of sources available, however,
does not diminish the requirement for actual evidence. That is,
the showing must be clear and particular. See, e.g., C.R. Bard,
157 F.3d at 1352, 48 USPQ2d at 1232.
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 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.
Independent claims 1 includes the following limitations:
[C]onverting an input representation of a pattern of
integrated circuit interconnects in a format suitable for a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007