Appeal No. 2006-3182
Application No. 09/883,963
of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88, 78 USPQ2d
1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) citing In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316-
17 (Fed. Cir. 2000). See also In re Thrift, 298 F.3d 1357, 1363, 63 USPQ2d 2002, 2008 (Fed.
Cir. 2002).
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 representative claim 12, Appellants argue in the Appeal and Reply Briefs
that neither Lanbropoulos nor Bates nor Ziemer teaches the limitation of synchronizing a
received pseudo code with a corresponding code already stored in memory through a substantial
correlation process within a time shift less than required for an intermediate transmission to
intercept and retransmit a response/interrogation signal. Particularly, at page 5 of the Appeal
Brief,4 Appellants state the following:
4 Appellants reiterate this same argument at page 2 of the Reply Brief.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007