Appeal No. 2006-1797
Application No. 09/866,319
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 the rejection of dependent claims 3 2, 3,
14, 22, 26, 27 and 33, we select claim 22 as representative of
the issues on appeal. To reject this claim the Examiner relies
upon the findings discussed in the anticipation rejection for the
subject matter of claim 45 (Answer, p. 7). The Examiner
acknowledges that Marty does not specifically disclose the
additional limitation of claim 22. The Examiner, however,
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the deep
3 We note that Appellants failed to particularly discuss the limitations of
these dependent claims in the Briefs. Instead, Appellants rely on their
earlier discussion of the limitations of independent claims 45 and 24, which
they incorporate by reference in each instance. Consequently, our finding for
representative claim 45 applies to these dependent claims as well.
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007