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 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007