Appeal No. 2006-2191
Application No. 10/108,147
(brief, pages 4-6; oral hearing). Appellants further assert that
such menu items while being navigated through, contain no
formatting of content for navigation (id.).
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. “In
reviewing the Examiner’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.” In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). In this case, as discussed by Appellants, the portions of
Fujita relied on by the Examiner (answer, pages 4-5)) merely
describe an apparatus for controlling equipments from a remote
location. In Fujita, a key pad, having unique inputs,
facilitates access to the menu options provided by each equipment
without discussing any content accessed through the Internet or
any of the devices. In that regard, we agree with Appellants
that matching control menu items with a set of key pads is not
the same as the claimed formatting content that is obtained via
the Internet.
We also find that, contrary to the Examiner’s analysis,
Fujita has nothing to do with formatting content accessed via
Internet for navigation. As such, the Examiner has failed to
provide sufficient evidence to show that Fujita would have taught
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007