Appeal No. 2005-1882
Application No. 09/989,244
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 5 of the brief, “neither
Kitao et al. nor Fong et al. show or suggest transmitting all (or a subset) of the code data, used to
form the control signals, from the remote control device to a first electronic device for storage in
a memory of the first electronic device.” The Examiner responds at page 8 of the answer that,
“the signal transmitted by the remote control [of Fong] is considered a code and not a control
signal because on receiving the signal from the remote control a look [up] table is used to
interpret the received signal in order to generate a control signal in order to execute a particular
function (col. 8 lines 50-64 [of Fong]).”
We find Appellants’ argument persuasive. Our review of the claim shows that lines 5-9
of claim 1 set forth the relationship between the code data and the control signals. The
relationship is that the control signals are those signals generated based on the code data at the
generator/transmitter side. Thus, the Examiner’s attempt to define the signal based on what
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007