Appeal No. 2003-2018
Application No. 09/057,261
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." 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 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 Barclay fails to teach or suggest
communicating a dictionary file having phonemes and a syntax file
having an allowable pattern of words from a host computer to a
mobile device, as required by Appellant's independent claims 1,
12, 18, 20 and 22. See pages 3-5 of Appellant's brief and reply
brief.
The Examiner agrees that Barclay does not teach a host
computer operative to communicating at least one graphical user
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007