Appeal No. 2001-0338
Application No. 08/932,953
by showing that some objective teaching in the prior art or
knowledge generally available to one of 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 if 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 will review Appellants'
arguments. Appellants argue that Tonosaki does not teach or
suggest Appellants' "changing intensity" as set forth in
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007