Appeal No. 2004-2102
Application No. 09/191,256
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 claims 1-22, Appellants have presented
numerous arguments as to why the Examiner has not met the initial
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. See
the arguments listed at page 4 of the brief. We limit our
discussion to Appellants’ first argument, as it is dispositive of
the appeal before us. At pages 5-14 of the brief, Appellants
argue that “the Scherpbier reference and the Kalajan reference do
not contain all the limitations of the present invention.” We
agree.
Appellants argue at page 6 of the brief, that Scherpbier
“does not include a listening program [responsive to requests for
remote access from the browser].” We agree. We find that the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007