Appeal No. 1996-2284
Application No. 08/228,889
common base, with the result that the folding mirrors would be
"secured to" the lens system.
Appellants note that claim 1 recites
"(a) a pair of folding mirrors (b) secured to said
lens and (c) positioned to receive and reflect said
images, (d) a detector associated with each said mirror
and (e) positioned to receive said reflected images, said
detectors (f) being in planes which are reflections by
said mirrors of said image plane" (parenthetical letters
added)[Brief at 4]
and contend that "Mitome doesn't show or suggest or teach
these elements because it is not a 'system to correct
misalignments resulting from environmental effects on the
lens'" and notes that claim 5 recites similar limitations
(id.). This argument is unconvincing because, as already
noted, appellants have not demonstrated that Mitome's system
will not inherently correct such misalignments while
correcting misalignments between the reticle and the wafer.
For the foregoing reasons, the § 103 rejection of claims
1 and 5 based on Mitome is affirmed.
As for claims 2-4, which depend on claim 1, appellants
argue that Mitome discloses none of the features recited in
these claims. The examiner did not specifically address any
of these features in the final rejection, the Answer, or the
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007