Appeal No. 1998-1813
Application 08/476,178
Page 3 of our original opinion indicated that our understanding of L'Esperance is
that a visual comparison is made between the light reflected from the actual surfaces of the
conductive members 16 and 18 as in Figure 2 and not from the surfaces of the integrated
circuit chip 12 or of the substrate 14. The reflected image recited in claim 6 is consistent
with this teaching as our original opinion indicated.
Therefore, as to appellants' first point, appellants effectively argue at pages 1 and 2
of the request for rehearing the disclosed rather than the claimed invention as it applies to
the recitations in claim 6. Our decision as well as our amplification here makes clear that
we fully understand the optical principles on which the claimed invention is intended to be
recited but it is not recited in such a degree of specificity in claim 6 as is required to
distinguish over the applied prior art as in the other independent claims 13 and 14 on
appeal. A careful consideration of our affirmance as to claim 6 in the original opinion as
well as the amplifying comments in this opinion as to claim 6 make clear that the language
of this claim is not as specific in more than one respect as is the language setting forth the
features of independent claims 13 and 14 on appeal on which we reversed the rejection.
Therefore, we remain unpersuaded of any error of our original opinion as to appellants'
second point. Finally, as to the third point at page 3 of the request for rehearing, the term
“image” as recited in the respective claims on appeal has been clearly understood by us.
There is no ambiguity in each of the recited claims as to the meaning of the term causing
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007