Appeal No. 2002-0880
Application No. 09/183,214
showing that some objective teaching in the prior art or knowledge generally available
to one of ordinary skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. 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 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 argument." 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).
We find that Winkler teaches a tester that is designed to test a plurality of
different standard electrical modules (SEM). An indicia plate 18 aids in the selection of
tapes and interface board 16 which are necessary to protect a particular SEM. By way
of example, key code “FDA” (refers to a 16-bit binary counter and in order to test this
binary counter, the test operator must select interface board “A”, tape No. “2", and dial
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007