Appeal No. 2002-1219
Application No. 09/471,667
system (appellant’s Fig. 1), an acknowledged prior art micro
device using assembly system (appellant’s figure 2), and the
disclosure in the specification (page 6, lines 18 through 20)
that
...[w]here programmed devices are involved,
the output media from the output mechanism 24
form FIG. 1 (PRIOR ART) would be used as the
input media in the input feeder 34.
We disagree with the examiner’s conclusion that the applied
evidence supports a conclusion of anticipation.
Like appellant (main brief, pages 8 and 10) we readily
perceive that the acknowledged prior art teaches two stand alone,
independent systems 10 and 30 wherein the output mechanism 24 of
the programming system (Fig. 1) can act as the input feeder 34
for the production assembly 30 (Fig. 2). We can perceive no
disclosure whatsoever in the prior art of the features of claim 1
of the input feeder and processing system being capable of
communicating with the control system, of the input feeder being
responsive to communication with the control system to feed micro
devices, of the processing system being capable of processing the
micro devices and communicating to the control system, and of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007