Appeal No. 2002-1047
Application 09/083,174
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). With
these principles in mind, we commence review of the pertinent
evidence and arguments of Appellants and Examiner.
In each of the above rejections, the Examiner is relying
either Matsugu or Fields for the teaching of detecting light
beams directed toward visual points, wherein detection is
effected by an image pickup device in a plurality of positions
lying on a virtual closed surface, and wherein the virtual points
are not lying on a virtual closed surface. We have found above
that neither Matsugu nor Fields teaches these limitations.
Therefore, we will not sustain these rejections for the same
reasons as above.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007