Appeal No. 2006-3323
Application No. 10/287,151
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 claim 5, Appellant argues in the Appeal and
Reply Briefs that Schmier does not teach claimed invention.
Particularly, Appellant asserts that Schmier does not teach
estimating and sending the time-of-arrival bounds for a
confidence interval for a user in transit from a source location
to a destination location. We have already addressed this
argument in the discussion of claim 1 above, and we agree with
Appellant. It is therefore our view, after consideration of the
record before us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of
skill in the particular art would not have suggested to the
ordinarily skilled artisan the invention as set forth in claim 5.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 5.
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007