Appeal No. 2006-0126
Application No. 10/140,619
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the appellants’ admitted prior art in view of
Kojima ‘546.
OPINION
We affirm the aforementioned rejection.
The appellants acknowledge that each element of the claimed
invention was known in the art except the claim 1 ultraviolet ray
source and optical sensor in slanted alignment with the inclined
adhesive, and the optical power meter and controller, and the claim
4 ultraviolet ray alignment and monitoring of the ultraviolet ray
output (specification, page 1, line 16 - page 2, line 11).
Regarding the optical sensor in slanted alignment with the
inclined adhesive (claim 1) and the ultraviolet ray alignment with
the inclined adhesive (claim 4), the appellants state that if the
ultraviolet rays are not aligned with the inclined adhesive
(appellants’ figure 2), then the portion of the inclined adhesive
that cannot be penetrated by the ultraviolet rays does not harden
properly (page 4, lines 3-11). Because this statement is in the
description of the related art, it appears to be an admission that
the problem resulting from applying the ultraviolet rays
perpendicularly to the wafer rather than in alignment with the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007