Appeal No. 2005-2489
Application No. 09/949,736
. . . The CPU 51 controls operations of the various
components of the apparatus 100 via the control bus 30
and control lines 31-36 that respectively connected to
. . . laser 8, stage 2 . . . By manual, automatic or
semiautomatic operation, the operator may selectively
operate any of the controlled components, move the
stage to its desired X, Y position, and rotate the top
platform of the stage to its desired Z axis orientation
. . . . Of course, if desired, the laser beam 26 may
be raster-scanned using optical methods, including
prisms and/or mirrors that are selectively moved to
sweep the beam across the surface of the DUT 24.
Implicit in this disclosure is that the means-plus-function
element recited in claim 19 includes any conventional structures
of piezoelectric operators, linear magnetic motors, lead screws
and/or controllers (CPUs) for automatically or manually
controlling the movement of a conventional laser and/or a X, Y
positioning table capable of holding or supporting a plastic
encapsulated integrated circuit.
Having interpreted the claims on appeal as indicated supra,
we shall evaluate the merits of the examiner’s Sections 102 and
103 rejections. To establish an anticipation under Section 102,
the examiner must demonstrate that Gartner relied thereupon
describes, either expressly or under the principles of inherency,
each and every element of the claimed invention. See In re
Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990);
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007