Appeal No. 2002-2184
Application No. 08/406,297
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 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
Appellants and Examiner.
When determining obviousness, "the [E]xaminer can satisfy the burden of
showing obviousness of the combination only by showing some objective teaching in
the prior art or individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references". In re
Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002), citing In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992). "Broad
conclusory statements regarding the teaching of multiple references, standing alone,
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007