Appeal No. 2002-0852
Application 09/466,322
1988). Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of
coming forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellant.
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 argument.” 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).
Appellant argues that Yoshida fails to teach or suggest a
cross sectional area of the track-shaped pole piece is made
to be equal to that of a circle of a diameter more than 1/3
of a minor axis side length of the loudspeaker so that no
magnetic saturation will occur even with the magnet made
larger and a magnetic efficiency can be elevated
as recited in Appellant’s claim 1. See pages 3 and 4 of the
brief and pages 2 and 3 of the reply brief.
In the answer, the Examiner states:
The cross sectional area of the pole piece of the Reference
is believed to be equal to that of a circle of a diameter
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007