Appeal No. 95-3583
Application No. 08/185,294
Appellants argue that Suzuki “discloses and claims a mask
and wafer alignment apparatus for use in the manufacture of
circuit elements” that uses “marks” as opposed to slots on the
mask and the wafer (Brief, pages 8 and 10), whereas claim 1
“recites an imaging system which forms multiple image exposures
on a photoreceptor belt and includes claim elements directed at
detecting lateral deviation of the belt during travel and
generating signals for correcting for the unwanted transverse
movement of the belt” (Brief, page 8). In view of the vast
differences between the disclosed and claimed invention and the
teachings of Suzuki, we agree with appellants that “Suzuki is not
analogous art and is not relevant to a consideration of
obviousness under Section 103" (Brief, page 7). Inasmuch as
Suzuki is concerned with the use of marks in the alignment of a
stationary mask and wafer, we do not believe that such teachings
would have logically commended themselves to an inventor
concerned with the problem of adjusting a moving photoreceptor
belt with the aid of slots located therein. See In re Clay,
966 F.2d 656, 659, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The
teachings of Suzuki, therefore, can not be relied upon by the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007