Appeal No. 2005-2310
Application 10/287,168
OPINION
We affirm the aforementioned rejections,
The appellant states that the claims stand or fall together
(brief, page 8; reply brief, page 4). Although, in the
rejections over Omae, additional references are applied to
independent claims 14 and 18 and dependent claims 5-7, 11, 15-17
and 19, the appellant does not separately argue the patentability
of those claims. Accordingly, we limit our discussion to one
independent claim, i.e., claim 1. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d
1565, 1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
Rejection of claim 1 over Leonard
Leonard discloses a method for automatically visually
inspecting articles such as electronic circuits by comparing a
first set of image data representing a known good article to a
second set of image data representing an article under inspection
(col. 1, lines 13-14; col. 5, lines 7-20).
The appellant argues that Leonard discloses a die to die
system, and that the appellant’s claimed invention is not a die
to die system (brief, page 10).1 The appellant does not point
1 The appellant states that a die to die system is one “in
which a die is compared to a purportedly identical die on the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007