Appeal No. 2004-1834
Application No. 10/158,885
storing this data in a “separate file” appears reasonable. In responding to appellant’s
argument, the examiner questions the “not associated” language of the claim. In
particular, at page 15 of the answer, the examiner contends that the base claim limits
the information as to the last column to be stored in a wafer map data file, and that
information placed in a wafer map data file can be placed in a separate (a second or
back up) file, but having the same information, it cannot be “not associated” with the
wafer map data file. The examiner appears to be questioning the definiteness of the
claim language but, more importantly, it appears that the examiner is contending that
the reference teaches a “separate file not associated with a wafer map data file” at least
to the same extent as such a feature is claimed and disclosed by appellant. Since
appellant has not offered anything that convinces us of any error in this position of the
examiner, we will sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
With regard to claim 7, the examiner explains the rejection by contending that
data of a partial wafer is used to pick and place dies and, at the time of picking and
placing, only data that pertains to the partial wafer is available; and that as this data is
available for picking and placing, this partial wafer data map is available prior to the step
of picking and placing. Thus, there is pre-processing, as claimed. Appellant’s only
response is to state that the reference does not disclose this claimed step. This is
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007