Appeal No. 2001-2201
Application .09/065, 997
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 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.
Upon review, we find that neither Kino nor Tanaami teach the
limitation of the “baffle placed in front of the said detecting
pinhole” as recited in claim 1. “It is axiomatic that, in
proceedings before the PTO, claims in an application are to be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification . . . and that claim language should be read in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art.” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007