Appeal No. 2003-1955
Application 09/447,544
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 Appellant and Examiner.
Appellant argues that neither Katoh, Brownlow nor Uchida
individually or collectively teaches or suggests a redundant
circuit that is configured to provide a signal for testing a
circuit and is configured to selectively replace the circuit as
specifically claimed by Appellant’s claims. In particular,
Appellant argues that Katoh and Uchida are silent with regard to
a test to identify defective circuits. See pages 3 through 5 of
Appellant’s brief.
In the Examiner’s answer, the Examiner states that
Brownlow’s redundant circuit includes a verification signal
generator 33 that provides a signal to a test circuit and a shift
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007