Appeal No. 2004-2037
Application No. 09/769,291
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 respect to independent claim 1, Appellants argue at
page 12 of the brief, "there is no disclosure in either
[reference] that a portable terminal be docked to a transport
during its trip." The Examiner rebuts this argument by asserting
"the computer device (portable device 20) is inserted into the
card reader and printer assembly (located on the aircraft)." We
find Appellants argument persuasive.
We find that the Bobowicz reference does teach that the
portable device 20 is docked into the card reader and printer
assembly located on the aircraft. However, we also find that
this does not meet the limitation of the claim requiring "docking
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007