Appeal No. 2004-1834
Application No. 10/158,885
examiner’s reasoning to be sound and that appellant has not convinced us of an error in
the examiner’s rationale, even though Balamurugan does not specifically identify a
“header,” as claimed. Thus, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. §103.
As to claim 4, appellant argues that no last column information of any kind is
found in Balamurugan and, therefore, the reference cannot suggest the storage of last
column information in a wafer map data file. We find the examiner’s rationale to be
reasonable, in finding that the listing, by Balamurugan, of locator dies, uses the last
column information (pointing to Figure 22) and continuously updates information, in
steps 16 and 23, and uses this map file for all partial wafers. Appellant has not
convinced us of any error in the examiner’s findings. Therefore, we will sustain the
rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
In claim 6, the last column and wafer identification are stored in a separate file
not associated with a wafer map data file and the last column information is retrieved
from storage before processing a partial wafer. Appellant contends that this is not
taught by Balamurugan. The examiner contends that the data of the partial wafer is
stored in a file and that this is a “separate file,” as broadly claimed.
We will sustain the rejection of claim 6 because the examiner’s explanation, at
pages 15-16 of the answer, as to why the storing of partial wafer data in a file suggests
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007