Appeal No. 2002-0859
Application 09/193,444
forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellant.
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 weigh all of the evidence and argument.” 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).
Appellant argues that there is no suggestion to combine
Tubel and Gerstel to achieve the combination of Appellant’s
claims. Appellant argues that Tubel teaches a downhole
communication system that achieves reliability without the need
of redundancy. Without this need, there is no need for or
motivation or suggestion in Tubel for a communication link having
channels to couple downhole nodes into a loop. Appellant also
argues that although Gerstel described a fault-tolerant
multichannel multiplexer ring configuration to bypass failed
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007