Appeal No. 2002-1201
Application No. 09/026,575
At the outset, appellants correctly point out that claims 17
and 18, which are dependent upon independent claim 16, stand or
fall together with separately argued claim 16, and claims 20-22,
which are dependent upon independent claim 19, stand or fall
together with separately argued claim 19.
Appellants contend that "[t]he Board further errs in
supporting all grounds of rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-15 by
stating that claims 1-3 and 5-15 do not require that the shadow
frame and the substrate be out of contact during processing"
(page 2 of Request, second paragraph). Appellants urge that
"[r]epresentative claim 1 specifies a 'substrate being processed'
and a shadow frame positionable with a gap between an underside
of the shadow frame and an upper surface of the substrate being
processed" (id.). However, we maintain our agreement with the
examiner that the claim language does not require that the shadow
frame and substrate be out of contact during processing. The
claim language simply requires that the shadow frame be capable
of being positioned with a gap between its underside and the
upper surface of the substrate. Appellants have not
demonstrated, or even argued, that the apparatus of White does
not possess this capability. Appellants acknowledge that process
claims 16 and 19 "do not require a gap between the substrate
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007