Appeal No. 2005-2489
Application No. 09/949,736
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440,
1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The law of
anticipation only requires that the claims on appeal "read on"
something disclosed in the prior art reference. See Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed.
Cir. 1983).
Here, it is not controverted that Gartner describes an
apparatus capable of removing an encapsulant from an encapsulated
integrated circuit, comprising a chamber having an optical
opening, a dispersion fluid inlet and an exhaust outlet, and a
laser mounted on the outside of the chamber in the claimed
manner. Compare the Answer and the final Office action dated
March 6, 2003 in their entirety with the Brief and the Reply
Brief in their entirety. With respect to independent claims 19
and 37, the appellant only argues that Gartner does not teach (1)
the functionally defined stage recited in claims 19 and 37; (2)
the “means for relatively moving the integrated circuit with
respect to the laser beam” recited in claim 19; and (3) the dust
bin recited in claim 37. See the Brief, pages 5-7. We are not
persuaded by these arguments.
First, as found by the examiner (the final Office action
dated March 6, 2003, page 3), Gartner teaches “a three-
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007