Appeal No. 2001-0006
Application 08/993,107
would have lead the artisan to the subject matter of at least
independent claims 1, 7 and 23 on appeal.
It is also noted that this quoted portion of Micka is not
further developed in any manner in any subsequent or previous
portion of the written description in Micka itself. The context
of applying the apparatus of the Figure 3 embodiment at column 6,
line 30 to a mask rather than to a comparison of master chips and
test chips per se is noted, yet the teaching there is to compare
a mask 140 in the Figure 3 embodiment in place of the master chip
where the comparison operation obviously would compare mask 140
to the test chip 10 itself. The artisan is placed in the
position of analyzing or translating this teaching to a pure
comparative masking or reticle environment such as that of
Noguchi which the examiner has not done either. Because Micka
does not further develop his teaching at the bottom of column 3,
there appears to be no appreciation in Micka of the overall
context of the subject matter of the claims on appeal or of
identifying defects that may occur over time of a given object
under test referenced to a point in time when the object itself
was of acceptable quality. The examiner's rationale has not made
any reference to this kind of thinking (best expressed at
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007