Appeal No. 2002-0964
Application 09/000,850
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in light
of the arguments of the appellants and the examiner. As a result
of this review, we have reached the conclusion that the applied
prior art establishes the prima facie obviousness of claims 7, 8,
10-13, 22, 23, 25, 26 and 30. The prior art does not establish
the prima facie obviousness of claims 9, 14-21, 24, 27, 28 and
29. Additionally, a rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b) has been
entered against claims 26, 29 and 30. Our reasons follow.
The following comprises our findings of fact as to the scope
and content of the prior art and the differences between the
prior art and the claimed subject matter. With respect to the
Japanese document of Terai there are several translations of
record in the application file. We have consulted both the
official PTO translation and the certified translation filed by
appellants as an attachment to Paper No. 15, filed November 14,
2000 for our findings of fact outlined below.
Terai discloses an apparatus and method for mounting a
plurality of electronic components on a circuit board. Referring
to figure 1, a movable transfer head 1 is provided for selecting
one of a plurality of nozzles. Each of the nozzles is capable of
picking up a select set of the plurality of electronic components
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007