Appeal No. 2006-2700
Application No. 10/705,456
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 3, Appellants argue in
the Briefs that neither Shapiro, nor Fisher, nor Jones teaches a
programming interface layer that includes the step of processing a
plurality of function-specific parameters pertaining to a wireless
mobile device to thereby generate a function-specific response to a
submitted request. Particularly, at pages 5 and 6 of the Appeal
Brief,3 Appellants state the following:
None of the cited references, alone or in combination,
teaches or suggests ‘a parameter processing module for
processing function-specific parameters, including device
information for a wireless mobile device, for one of said
3 We note that Appellants reiterate these same arguments at pages 4 through 7
of the Reply Brief and at pages 2 and 3 of the Supplemental Reply Brief.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013