Appeal No. 96-1179
Application 08/190,622
considered independently of the sixth, read on elements
disclosed or suggested by Talieh. It should be
understood however, that the recitation of the drive
means implies limitations that the chamber accommodate
the drive means and that the collimator be mobile.
Appellant further stipulates that the words in the
preamble (before "comprising") and in the "whereby"
clause are not words of limitation.
Appellant's stipulation regarding the first five elements
of claim 1, "considered independently of the sixth," is
confusing since appellant list only five major elements of
claim 1: (1) a chamber, (2) a target holder, (3) a wafer
holder, (4) a collimator, and (5) a drive means. However, in
view of the main
thrust of appellant's briefs and the examiner's rejection, we
understand appellant's stipulation to be a concession that
Talieh discloses the major elements of claim 1 with the
singular exception of a "drive means for moving and removing
said collimator into and out of a position between said target
and said wafer." We note that appellant also acknowledges
that the preambular language, as well as the "whereby" clause,
do not constitute claim limitations.
For purposes of this appeal the most relevant disclosure
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007