Ex Parte Doan - Page 2




             Appeal No. 2002-2159                                                             Page 2               
             Application No. 09/652,969                                                                            


                                                 BACKGROUND                                                        
                    The appellant's invention relates to a chemical dispensing system for                          
             semiconductor wafer processing.  An understanding of the invention can be derived                     
             from a reading of exemplary claim 38, which has been reproduced below.                                
                    The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                
             appealed claims are:                                                                                  
             Iwata et al. (Iwata)              4,611,553                         Sep. 16, 1986                     
             Milina                            5,444,921                         Aug. 29, 1995                     
                    The examiner has rejected claims 38-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                          
             unpatentable over Iwata in view of Milina.                                                            
                    Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                  
             the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the Answer                    
             (Paper No. 12) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and to              
             the Brief (Paper No. 11) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 13) for the appellant's arguments                 
             thereagainst.                                                                                         
                                                    OPINION                                                        
                    In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to                
             the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the             
             respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner.  As a consequence                 
             of our review, we make the determinations which follow.                                               








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007