Ex Parte BRESLAU et al - Page 5



          Appeal No. 2003-0994                                                        
          Application No. 08/579,544                                                  

          obviousness.  In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,           
          1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).  See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,             
          1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).  The Examiner can                 
          satisfy this burden by showing 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 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).                 
               With respect to independent claim 16, which is                         
          representative of claims 17-19, 38-41, 45-55, and 59-63,                    

                                          5                                           


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007