Appeal No. 1998-2213
Application 08/655,863
Kurimura’s disclosure that lack of normal vacuum is to be avoided
(col. 6, lines 51-52) would have fairly suggested, to one of
ordinary skill in the art, not only preventing lack of normal
vacuum by avoiding air leakage, but also doing so by using a
suction tube which provides sufficient suction, e.g., one which
is not clogged.
Claim 12
The appellants argue that the applied references would not
have suggested use of attracting state parameters to indicate at
least two abnormal states (brief, page 8). Kurimura’s apparatus,
however, is capable of being used to indicate more than one
abnormal state, such as defects in the specimen slide, dust on
the specimen slide surface, and defects in the holding arm
(col. 6, lines 34-60).
Claim 14
The appellants argue that Kurimura’s apparatus is not
capable of taking pressure measurements at two predetermined
times after the suction pad begins applying suction to the
analysis film, and comparing the suction pressure measurements
with predetermined values to determine a state of the suction pad
(brief, page 9; reply brief, pages 3-4). Kurimura, the
-7-7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007