Appeal No. 2001-2332
Application 08/909,249
second array distribution (e.g., a 2x8 array). The specification
(page 46) notes that the original 4x4 array is desirable from a
mold efficiency standpoint, while the 2x8 second array
distribution facilitates optical inspection by an automated lens
inspection system.
With the above-noted understanding of what is required in
appellants’ claims on appeal, we find the examiner’s broad
construction of the claim language to be unwarranted. Thus, for
the reasons set forth on pages 3-5 of the brief, it is our
determination that the examiner’s rejection of claims 29, 30 and
44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Herman in
view of Hansen and anyone of Goransson, Colamussi and Warren will
not be sustained.
Turning now to the examiner’s alternative rejection of
claims 29, 30 and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Herman in view of Hansen and Colamussi as
applied above, and further in view of anyone of Riley, Montferme
and Lebret, we must agree with appellants that although Riley,
Montferme and Lebret appear to each disclose altering array
distributions during transporting of articles from one location
to another, the examiner has not provide any proper motivation to
combine the applied prior art references so as to arrive at the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007