Appeal No. 1998-2397
Application No. 08/654,708
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 9,
mailed September 26, 1997) and the Supplemental Examiner's
Answer (Paper No. 11, mailed January 26, 1998) for the
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and
to appellant's Brief (Paper No. 8, filed June 23, 1997) and
Reply Brief (Paper No. 10, filed November 24, 1997) for
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review,
we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 8, 10
through 18, 24, and 25.
The examiner (Answer, page 4) explains that in the claims
"no specific 'testing object' has been designated," and that
during "visual inspection, the wafer 14, itself, would be the
'testing object.'" The examiner (Answer, page 4) points to
the wafer in appellant's figure 1, stating that "it appears
that the wafer edges angle downward ... and therefore can be
designated as an 'angled upper portion'" as recited in the
claims. We disagree.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007