Appeal No. 2003-1992
Application No. 09/075,777
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
these principles in mind, we commence review of the pertinent
evidence and arguments of Appellants and Examiner.
For the rejection of claims 1-5, 20-25 and 40-44, Appellants
argue that Bradbury in combination with Takach fails to teach or
suggest all the claimed limitations as claimed in independent
claims 1, 21 and 41. Appellants argue that the combination of
Bradbury and Takach fail to teach or suggest a rigid frame
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007