Appeal 2006-2959
Application 10/066,277
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Esrig anticipates the claimed invention under
35 U.S.C. § 102 (b), when Esrig discloses examining a Device Under Test to
detect defects wherever located in the chip. Further, one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the present invention, would have found that Jaber
renders the claimed invention unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) when
Jaber teaches a system for semi-automatically testing and inspecting
concrete. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
present invention would have found sufficient motivation Under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a), to combine Wallack or Mitsuyama with Esrig by incorporating a
color segmentation mechanism into a system for identifying defects in a
device under test.
DECISION
We have affirmed the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 through
4, 6 through 8, 23 through 26 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. We have also
affirmed the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 5, 9 through 22, 27, and 29
through 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013