Appeal No. 2001-1008
Application No. 08/971,097
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 USPQ2d 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 there is no suggestion in either Wolfe
or Nishimura that teaches or suggest entertaining the customer
while their images are being printed. In particular, the
Appellant argues that they recognize a problem of boredom while
an image is being processed by a photobooth. The Appellant
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007