Appeal No. 2000-1502 Page 4
Application No. 08/643,597
After considering the record, we are persuaded that the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-8. Accordingly, we
reverse.
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or
appellants in toto, we address the main point of contention
therebetween. The examiner asserts, "Zabele shows . . . an
overlay frame wherein the associated inspection area of the
defect of the printed image is designated on the monitor by
said
overlay frame (note col. 11, lines 48-58)." (Examiner's
Answer at 3-4.) The appellants argue, "[n]either Zabele nor
Zingher et al. disclose the overlay frame of claim 1 or have
any suggestion or motivation to provide such a frame around a
defective inspection area." (Appeal Br. at 12.)
In deciding obviousness, “[a]nalysis begins with a key
legal question -- what is the invention claimed?” Panduit
Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d
1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “Claims are not interpreted in a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007