Appeal No. 2006-3284
Application No. 10/061,871
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 18, Appellant argues in
the Briefs that neither Kamper nor Sun teaches generating a
server configuration profile image based on a current
configuration server. Particularly, at page 24 of the Appeal
Brief, Appellant states the following:
Appellant respectfully asserts that the Kamper
reference does not teach or suggest “generating a server
configuration profile image based on a current
configuration of a server,” as recited in claim 18.
(Emphasis added). Moreover, the Sun reference, which
discloses a self-initializing chipset designed to
initialize without interruption by a processor, cannot
cure this deficiency in the Kamper reference, because it
does not even mention configuration profile images. See
Sun, abstract, lines 1-4; see also, col. 2, lines 1-3.
In order for us to decide the question of obviousness,
“[t]he first inquiry must be into exactly what the claims
define.” In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ 545, 548
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007