Appeal No. 2003-0326
Application No. 09/050,871
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 at1445, 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.
The Examiner argues that Cowgill teaches a common control
interface that interoperates with a plurality of disparate system
types. The Examiner points us to col. 9, lines 25 through 59 of
Cowgill. See page 2 of the Examiner’s Answer.
Appellants argue that independent Claim 1 recites
a common control interface that provides a different
appropriate interface for each of the plurality of
disparate systems ... and
a system that formats and transfers said data from
said common control interface to at least one system of
said plurality of disparate systems; wherein...
said common control interface simultaneously
integrates the plurality of disparate systems and
software applications.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007