Appeal No. 2004-0559
Application No. 09/276,382
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 arguments.” 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).
Appellants argue on page 6 of the brief that Cohen does not suggest the claimed
proxy consumer objects, each associated with one of said consumer objects and
between said filter object and said supplier object.
The examiner responds to the appellants’ argument on page 8 of the answer by
stating:
With the EMS, Cohen utilizes a “recording service 20” p5 42-571 that serves as “a
first level or ‘supplier-side’ event filter.” This first level filter object functions as
the claimed proxy object. The recording service object receives events and
relays them along in the management service… In considering the proxy
consumer object and its operations, it is noted that Applicant uses terminology
that has broad meaning in the art, and thus requires a broad interpretation of the
claims in determining patentability of the disclosed invention.
1 The examiner’s rejection refers to page and line numbers in a text only copy of the patent, page
5, lines 42 through 57 correlate to column 5, lines 13 through 17 of the published patent.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007