Appeal 2006-2959
Application 10/066,277
ISSUES
The pivotal issues in the appeal before us are as follows:
(1) Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b), does Esrig anticipate the claimed invention
when Esrig discloses examining a Device Under Test to detect defects
wherever located in the chip?
(2) Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a), would one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the present invention, have found that Jaber renders the claimed
invention unpatentable when Jaber teaches a system for semi-automatically
testing and inspecting concrete?
(3) Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a), would one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the present invention, have found sufficient motivation to combine
Wallack or Mitsuyama with Esrig by incorporating a color segmentation
mechanism into a system for identifying defects in a device under test?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellants invented a system (figure 1) for substantially
automatically2 analyzing the quality of concrete samples. (Abstract).
Particularly, a camera (28) in collaboration with a microscope (24) captures
a surface image of a prepared sample of concrete (12) disposed on a stage
(26). (Specification 8, ll. 17-23). Subsequently, a computer (30)
substantially automatically analyzes the captured image to identify surface
features and characteristics of the concrete sample. Then, the computer
2 We construe the claim limitation “substantially automatically” evaluating
or analyzing the samples as being a semi automated evaluation or analysis of
the samples by a computer with some human intervention.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013