Appeal No. 2004-1834
Application No. 10/158,885
locator die and in equating a wafer map host with a wafer map data file, arguing that a
wafer map host also manipulates data, which a file does not do.
The problem with appellant’s arguments, as we see it, is that there are many
arguments with regard to the present invention differing from that disclosed by
Balamurugan, but there are few arguments pointing to specific claim language.
Accordingly, it is unclear in many of the arguments as to just what claim language
appellant relies on to distinguish the instant claimed invention from the disclosure of
Balamurugan. Then in those arguments specifically pointing to claim language,
appellant argues that Balamurugan does not disclose or suggest the cited claim
language but appellant never convincingly rebuts the examiner’s specific identification,
in Balamurugan, of the claimed features. That is, while appellant argues that the
reference does not show or suggest a particular claimed feature, appellant has not
shown, convincingly, any error in the examiner’s reasoning. For example, appellant
contends that a file is not a wafer map host with manipulation. Yet, claim 1 says nothing
about any “manipulation.” It calls for a “wafer map data file” and the examiner has
pointed to column 5, lines 63-64, of Balamurugan for a showing of a “wafermap data
host” to which locator die coordinates are uploaded. Accordingly, it seems that, in
Balamurugan, coordinates are stored in a wafermap data host and must therefore be
stored in some type of “file.” If the file is in a “wafermap data host,” it appears that the
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007