Appeal No. 1998-2260
Application No. 08/535,685
At the outset, we note the grouping at page 2 of the
brief as follows: group one as made of claims 1 to 3, 17 to
19, and 26 to 28 and, group two of claims 4 to 5, 14 to 16,
and 20 to 25. However, wherever applicable in our analysis,
the merits of the claims will override this grouping. We
start in the order of the above grouping.
Claims 1 to 3, 17 to 19, and 26 to 28
Even though Appellant treats these claims as one group
and does not argue them individually except for claim 18 which
is briefly discussed separately in the brief at page 3, and
further in the reply brief at page 2, we discuss the two
independent claims of this group, 1 and 18, separately because
they contain different limitations. We take claim 1 first.
We agree with the Examiner’s position [answer, pages 3 to 5]
that Harvey shows an apparatus and method of aligning two flat
substrates 11 and 12 using an optical beam, and that it would
have been obvious at the time of invention for an artisan to
adopt this technique to the aligning of the flat panels of a
display. Appellant argues that the claimed invention is an
application of the technique to a different physical
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007