Appeal No. 2006-1456
Application No. 09/896,802
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 dependent claims 2 and 15, Appellants merely repeat the
argument made with respect to claim 1. We have already addressed that
argument above and found it unpersuasive.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
IV. Whether the Rejection of Claims 3-4, 9, 12-13, 16-17, 22, 25-26,
and 28 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence
relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art the invention as set forth in claims 3-4, 9, 12-13, 16-17,
22, 25-26, and 28. Accordingly, we affirm.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Appellants again argue at page 13 of
the brief that Cheng fails to teach “a set of linked web pages.” As we have
previously discussed, we disagree as Cheng is explicitly directed to navigating
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007