Appeal No. 2004-1231
Application 09/481,224
1992). See also In are Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ
785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can satisfy this burden by
showing that some objective teaching in the prior art or knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art suggests
the claimed subject matter. In re 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 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 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 now turn to consider the arguments related to claims 1-20.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007