Appeal No. 1998-1813
Application 08/476,178
Appellants' disclosed basis under which the claimed invention is recited is most
aptly reflected in the description in the specification in the paragraph bridging pages 5 and
6 stating “the reflection of the upper object to be detected in the surface of the lower
substrate and relative motion imparted to the substrates eliminating the reflection
produces alignment.” In a summary manner at page 7 of the specification as filed it is
stated that “alignment of superpositioned objects on opposing substrates is achieved
through relative movement of the substrates responsive to an image of one object reflected
from the surface of the opposite substrate.”
Our original opinion carefully parsed the language of respective independent claims
13, 14 and 6 to indicate the recitations therein in claims 13 and 14 that led us to conclude
the rejection of these claims and their respective dependent claims must be reversed yet
also conclude the unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of independent claim 6 and its
respective dependent claims. The above-quoted portions of the specification as filed are
most aptly reflected in independent claim 13 as generally expressed in our original opinion
at page 3. Claim 13 was said to specifically recite that the reflected light is from the
supporting substrate as a distinguishing factor over the teachings of the applied reference.
Similarly, we noted that the reference did not determine any reduction of any reflected light
according to the operation of the reference's system in Figure 2 but that which is recited at
the end of claim 13 on appeal. Neither of these features are recited in independent claim
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007