Appeal No. 2003-0661
Application 09/032,622
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 respect to claim 34, the essence of the Examiner’s
rejection is that Soumiya et al would suggest to one of ordinary
skill in the art the obviousness of modifying Soumiya’s
transmission rate calculating unit 22 (Figure 7, with details at
figure 8) from a fixed observation time interval calculation to
an event driven calculation given Soumiya’s teaching of event
driven time interval calculation being used by delay time
measuring unit 5 (Figure 3). Appellant argues, in Soumiya’s unit
22 “the arriving cells define the observation period rather than
the other way around.” (brief, page 11, fourth paragraph) We
agree. Soumiya’s unit 22 already uses event driven interval
calculation based on the first and last of a set number of cells
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007