Appeal 2006-2959
Application 10/066,277
characteristics of the sample and to generate a report of the result of the
analysis. (Br. 11; Reply Br. 4). For these same reasons, Appellants
conclude that claims 9 through 16, 18 through 22, 29 through 36, 38 through
42 are not unpatentable over Esrig in various combinations with Jaber,
Wallack, Mitsuyama, Oosawa and Cho. Further, Appellants contend that
Jaber does not automatically analyze an image to identify surface features of
a sample of concrete. Rather, Jaber requires a user to identify the surface
features by viewing the images of the sample of concrete. (Br. 10).
Therefore, Appellants submit that the Esrig-Jaber combination would not
have rendered claims 5, 17, 27, and 37 unpatentable. Additionally,
Appellants contend that Esrig is nonanalogous art (Br. 14, 27) , and that the
Examiner failed to properly establish sufficient motivation to combine Esrig
with Wallack and Mitsuyama to reject dependent claims 9, 14, 29 and 34.
(Br. 23, 24).
The Examiner, in contrast, contends that Esrig teaches the claimed
automated analysis of sample features of a surface as a computer system that
detect defects wherever located in a chip. (Answer 13). Further, the
Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to analyze Jaber’s
samples of concrete in Esrig’s emission microscopy system (Answer 7).
Additionally, the Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to
combine the teachings of Esrig with those of Wallack and Mitsuyama to
render claims 9, 14, 29 and 34 unpatentable. (Answer 9).
We affirm.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013