Appeal No. 2002-0716
Application 09/092,255
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 will first address the rejection of claims 29, 31, 33
through 39, 46 through 53, 56, 59 through 66, 69, 72 through 76,
78 and 79 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Heyl,
Tanaka and Naimpally. Appellants argue that neither of these
references teach or suggest “a compression encoder providing at
least inter-frame coding . . .” as recited in Appellants’ claims
29, 48, 53, 56 and 76. See pages 14 through 16 of the brief.
Appellants further argue that the references fail to teach or
suggest “a plurality of standard compression decoders responding
to at least inter-frame coding . . .” as recited in claim 66.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007