Appeal No. 2003-1046
Application 09/100,934
forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellants.
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 weight 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.
The Examiner agrees that Adamchick does not expressly teach
adding or subtracting the integer 635 as recited in Appellant’s
claims 5 and 6 respectively. The Examiner argues that these
limitations are well known in the art. See page 4 of the
Examiner’s answer.
Appellant responds by stating that the Manual of Patent
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007