Appeal No. 2000-2161
Application No. 08/933,319
brief (Paper No. 12, filed March 14, 2000) for the arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants' specification and claims,
to the applied prior art reference, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determination
which follows.
Regarding the examiner's rejection of claims 11 through
14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on the Tsuji patent, we note
that in the examiner's view, Tsuji discloses (in the language
of claim 11 on appeal) a first placement workcell (substrate
supply station 1) and a second placement workcell (parts
mounting station 3). The examiner's theory on how the method
of operating the assembly line of Tsuji is responsive to the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007