Appeal No. 2005-0166
Application 09/789,872
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in
claims 1-48. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-48 under the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. It is the position of the
examiner that the claims contain subject matter which was not
described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably
convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at
the time the specification was filed, had possession of the
claimed invention. Specifically, the rejection seems to object
to the fact that the description of the invention is a
generalized philosophy of the concept of computer and
mathematical modeling without providing a clear-cut methodology
of specific input data, output data and the transfer function
prediction. The examiner also asserts that the specification
does not support specifically how manufacturing characteristic
data can generate a manufacturing metric distribution and adjust
target values as claimed [answer, pages 3-5].
Appellants argue that the operation of a manufacturing
system as claimed is well known to those of ordinary skill in the
art. Appellants argue that Figure 2 of the application and its
corresponding description clearly teaches how to generate a
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007