Appeal No. 1996-2284
Application No. 08/228,889
1991
Kosugi et al. (Kosugi) 5,262,822 Nov.
16, 1993
Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable for obviousness over Mitome alone and
alternatively for obviousness over Kosugi in view of Sakamoto.
The level of skill in the art is represented by the
references. In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91, 198 USPQ 210, 214
(CCPA 1978) ("the PTO usually must evaluate both the scope and
content of the prior art and the level of ordinary skill
solely on the cold words of the literature"). In re GPAC
Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir.
1995) (Board did not err in adopting the approach that the
level of skill in the art was best determined by the
references of record).
The rejection based in Mitome
Figure 2 of Mitome shows a system for aligning reference
marks on a reticle 8 with alignment marks on a workpiece or
wafer 11 (col. 4, lines 57-61). Comparing claim 1 to Mitome's
Figure 2, the examiner apparently reads the claimed lens on
projection lens system 9, the claimed reticle on reticle 8,
the claimed alignment means on reticle drive 21, the claimed
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007