Appeal No. 2000-2161
Application No. 08/933,319
"dynamically reconfiguring" step set forth in appellants'
claim 11 on appeal is explained on pages 3-5 of the answer.
Having carefully reviewed the disclosure of the Tsuji
patent and appellants' arguments in their brief, we must agree
with appellants that the Tsuji patent does not anticipate the
method as set forth in claims 11 through 14 on appeal. More
particularly, we agree with appellants (brief, pages 6-7) that
while some reconfiguration of the substrate supply station (1)
of Tsuji (the first placement workcell) does occur during the
processing of one or more kinds of substrates used in the
manufacturing of printed circuit boards, such reconfiguring is
not done "in response to the information transferred to the
host computer from the second placement workcell" as required
in claim 11 on appeal.
In Tsuji there is no indication that the second placement
workcell (parts mounting station 3) provides any information
relating to the state of the second placement workcell to the
host computer (4), or that even if such information might be
transferred to the host computer from the second placement
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007