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. 10Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007