Ex Parte SEZAN - Page 8



          Appeal No. 2002-1460                                                        
          Application 09/040,510                                                      

          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 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).                     
               For the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we note that the             
          Examiner relies on Alkofer for the above limitations.                       

                                          8                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007