Appeal No. 2001-0815
Application 08/803,947
the references and combine them to render the claimed invention
obvious.” Lee, 277 F.3d at 1343, 61 USPQ2d at 1434 quoting In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir.
1992). See also Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 999, 50 USPQ2d at 1617
quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1359, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1459
(Fed. Cir. 1998). “[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 or deemed
to support the agency’s conclusion.” Lee, 277 F.3d at 1344, 61
USPQ2d at 1434. With these principles in mind, we commence
review of the pertinent evidence and arguments of Appellants and
Examiner.
Upon a careful review, we fail to find that the
Examiner has provided the requisite findings or reasons in
Martensson or Furuno to modify these disclosures to obtain the
Appellants’ claimed invention. We note that Appellants’ claim 1
recites a
processor operable to perform a predetermined
function of placing the handset in the off-
hook condition in response to user input of
a predefined actuation signal, wherein the
processor is operable to delay performance of
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007