Appeal No. 2001-0006
Application 08/993,107
references relied upon, while making a specific reference only to
certain locations of column 2 and 3 of Micka.
The nature of the disclosed invention is the method of
inspecting a reticle for defects that occur in use over time by
first storing a baseline image of the reticle and then
subsequently generating a current, later in time image of the
reticle and comparing it to the original or baseline image.1
This is the essence of what is set forth in independent claims 1,
7 and 23 on appeal.
The examiner's statement of the rejection at pages 2-4 of
the final rejection does not appear to come to grips with the
essence of this issue until the examiner's remarks at page 4
which are in response to arguments presented by appellants before
the final rejection. We reproduce these remarks at page 4 of the
final rejection here:
The remarks argue that the instant invention
compares two objects at different times to identify
defects. However, the earlier image is when the object
is known to be acceptable, and is thus exactly the type
of acceptable object that the references teach should
be used as the baseline object. While it is correct
that the references do not explicitly state that the
acceptable baseline can be an earlier image if [sic,
of] the same object taken when it is known to be
1 The examiner has provided us no evidence that the measure
and test arts generally were aware of this approach.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007