Appeal No. 2005-0429 Page 5
Application No. 09/872,209
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re
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 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 6 of the
brief, “[t]he timing transfer is not a user selected mode.” We have reviewed claim
1 and find no such limitation in the claim. There is no structure in claim 1 that
performs the function of a user selecting a mode. Rather, the structure recited is
“an interface configured to receive . . . a mode signal” with the mode signal
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007