Appeal No. 2001-0953
Application No. 08/923,651
In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir.
2002). With these principles in mind, we commence review of the
pertinent evidence and arguments of Appellants and Examiner.
Appellants argue that none of the references show, teach or
suggest the limitations recited in claim 1. In particular,
Appellants argue that claim 1 requires a computer connected to
the image acquisition system which, in addition to automatically
aligning the silicon wafer and obtaining an image of a plurality
of silicon dies, automatically calculates a statistical die model
from a sample of silicon dies. Appellants argue that this
limitation is not taught or suggested by Sandland, Tanaka,
Iwakiri or any proper combination of these references either
alone or in the combination as claimed. See page 4 of
Appellants' brief. Appellants have similar arguments as to the
other independent claim, claim 9. See page 7 of the brief.
We note that Appellants' claim 1 recites
a computer connected to said image acquisition system
wherein said computer automatically aligns said silicon
wafer, automatically obtains an image of a plurality of
silicon dies, automatically calculates a statistical
die model for the samples of silicon dies.
Simarily, we find that claim 9 recites
wherein said computer automatically aligns said silicon
wafer, automatically obtains images of a plurality of
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007