Appeal No. 2003-1070
Application 09/021,727
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.” In re
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 143, 1434 (Fed. Cir.
2002).
Rejection of Claims 30, 34, 38, 41, 43 and 44
over Liu in view of Flanagan
Appellants point out that independent claim 30 recites a
method and requires reading event-timing statements in a mark-up
language document, wherein the event-timing statements are in a
user-viewable format and each specifying an execution time for an
event, and execution time for each event as expressed according
to its position along a timeline common to plurality of events.
Appellants further point out that independent claim 34 likewise
calls for a mark-up language document that has a plurality of
event-timing statements that are in an user-viewable
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007