Appeal No. 2006-3280
Application No. 09/874,152
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 1, Appellants argue in
the Briefs that neither Weisser nor Knoerle nor Watts teaches
dialing the subscriber line from the intelligent peripheral of
the AIN telecommunications system to determine whether the
subscriber line is no longer busy.
Particularly, at page 7 of the Appeal Brief,4 Appellants state the
following:
None of the references cited by the Examiner
disclose an intelligent peripheral placing calls on
behalf of queued calls to determine if a called
subscriber is busy.
4 We note that Appellants reiterate these same arguments at page 2 of the
Reply Brief.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007