Appeal No. 1998-1813
Application 08/476,178
6 on appeal. The features of independent claim 14 were discussed at page 4 of our
original opinion where we indicated the basis of our reversal of the rejection of this claim
because it contained a recitation of the relative movement of the substrates to bring
together or otherwise align the first and second substrates that was stated to be in
response to the elimination of the claimed reflection. Again, this feature is not recited in
independent claim 6 as our opinion at pages 4 and 5 so indicates.
Our discussion of claim 14 at page 4 of our original opinion indicates that the
reflection of the image in this claim is different than the reflection in independent claim 13
and, at the same time, we indicated that the recitation in claim 6 is comparable to that in
claim 14. Claim 6 requires that the observation of a reflected image be “of a first
conductor on an area of said first substrate” where the meaning of this language is that the
first conductor must be physically on the area of the first substrate. The claim does not
require that a reflected image be from a substrate as recited in independent claim 13 on
appeal. This was explained in detail in the paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5 of our
original opinion. Claim 6 states that the first conductor is on the first substrate and not that
a reflected image comes from any substrate at all. We also sustained the rejection of
claim 6 because there is no positive statement of any alignment occurring as
contemplated at line 4 of claim 6 by the recited means for relatively moving at the end of
this claim.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007