Appeal No. 2005-0651
Application 09/826,486
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, Appellant argues at
page 6 of the brief, Hundt teaches away from forming an
integrated biometric security system on a single integrated
circuit die. We find this argument unpersuasive. “A reference
may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon
reading the reference . . . would be led in a direction divergent
from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Haruna,
249 F.3d 1327, 1336, 58 USPQ2d 1517, 1522 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We
do not find this to be the situation before this Board. At most
it can be argued that Hundt teaches forming an integrated
biometric security system on plural integrated circuit dies.
However, we find that this difference does not constitute
teaching away from a single die.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007