Appeal No. 2002-1044
Application No. 09/017,096
that some objective teaching in the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Only if this initial burden is met does the
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 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
Appellants and the Examiner.
For the rejections of claims 10, 11 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hatano in view of Des Jardins, Appellants argue that neither Hatano
nor Des Jardins teaches that each ATM cell of the packet containing said received cell
is discarded before arriving in the central cell memory. In particular, Appellants argue
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007