Appeal No. 2002-1219
Application No. 09/471,667
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the board has carefully considered
appellant’s specification and claims, 1 the applied teachings,2
and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As
a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
1 Considering the language in claim 1 of “the input feeder
responsive to communication with the control system to feed the
micro devices”, and “the robotic handling system responsive to
communication of the processing system with the control system to
take micro devices and place the micro devices on the assembly
system”, we don’t necessarily agree with appellant’s analysis as
to what is or is not part of the claimed invention (main brief,
pages 5 and 6).
2 In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have
considered all of the disclosure of each document for what it
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art. See
In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into account not
only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw
from the disclosure. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159
USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007