Appeal No. 2002-0582
Application No. 09/083,936
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 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.
In the brief and supplemental brief, Appellant argues that
neither Kakizoe nor Manthe either alone or in combination teach
or suggest forming the gas blow-arc openings from the arc cover
and the arc box. Appellant points out that this limitation is
recited in each of the independent claims 6, 9 and 12. Appellant
further points out that claims 7 and 8 also recite this
limitation because they depend on claim 6.
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007