Ex Parte DeLano - Page 9


                   Appeal No. 2006-1550                                                                                           
                   Application No. 10/044,401                                                                                     

                          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 claims 16 and 17, Appellant argues at page 8 of the Appeal                         
                   Brief that Yokoyama does not teach the steps of determining whether the width of the                           
                   input port is more than the width of the output port; submitting the data as processed                         
                   when the width of the input port is not more than the width of the output port; obtaining                      
                   the width of the output port when the width of the input port is greater than the width of                     
                   the output port; formatting the data from the input port to data configured for the obtained                   
                   width of the output port; submitting the formatted data as the processed data.  Further,                       
                   Appellant argues that Lach does not cure these deficiencies.                                                   
                   We note that claims 16 and 17 read in part as follows:                                                         
                          “ determining whether the width of the input port is more than the width of the                         
                          output port; submitting the data as processed data when the width of the input port                     
                          is not more than the width of the output port; obtaining the width of the output                        
                          port when the width of the input port is greater than width of the output port;                         
                          formatting the data from the input port to data configured for the obtained width                       
                          of the output port; submitting the formatted data as the processed data.”                               
                   At pages 11-12, paragraphs 0029-0030, Appellant’s specification states:                                        
                          Based on port configuration of different widths, the first step in the processing                       
                          method (block 196) is to determine whether the width of the input port is greater                       
                          than the width of the output port (block 200). If not, the data are submitted as                        
                          processed data (block 202) back to the method shown in FIG. 4, since it is not                          

                                                                9                                                                 



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007