Ex Parte JIANG et al - Page 6



         Appeal No. 2006-1605                                                       
         Application No. 09/470,741                                                 
         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).                    


                                         6                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007