Appeal No. 2001-1342
Application 08/994,821
forward with evidence 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.” 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 Appellants and Examiner.
Appellants argue that none of the references applied by the
Examiner, alone or in combination, disclose, teach or suggest a
dataform reader capable of independently imaging and decoding two
overlying dataforms utilizing a single two dimensional image
assembly and an illumination assembly including two illumination
sources generating two different wavelengths of illumination and
wherein control and selection circuitry sequentially actuates the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007