Appeal No. 1998-2213
Application 08/655,863
appellants argue, repeats entire inspections rather than making
multiple measurements and carries out these inspections only when
a malfunction occurs and, therefore, does not inspect at
predetermined times (brief, pages 9-10). Each of Kurimura’s
inspections is a measurement of the suction pressure. Thus, his
disclosure of four inspections (col. 6, lines 56-60) indicates
that the apparatus is capable of providing multiple suction
pressure measurements. The apparatus necessarily is capable of
determining the state of the suction pad by carrying out each of
the four measurements at some time after the previous
measurement, i.e., at predetermined times.
Claim 16
Detecting both leaks and obstructions would have been fairly
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art by Kurimura for the
reasons given above regarding claims 6, 8 and 12.
Claim 9
As discussed above regarding claim 14, Kurimura’s apparatus
is capable of monitoring the suction pressure at a plurality of
predetermined times.
-8-8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007