Appeal No. 2006-3246
Application No. 09/956,849
statements regarding the teaching of multiple references, standing alone, are
not evidence.’” In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614,
1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “Mere denials and conclusory statements, however,
are not sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact.” Dembiczak,
175 F.3d at 999-1000, 50 USPQ2d at 1617, citing McElmurry v. Arkansas
Power & Light Co., 995 F.2d 1576, 1578, 27 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
Further, as pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine
the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker
Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Therefore, we look to the limitations as recited in independent claim 6192.
We find that the limitations of independent claim 6192 do not recite any
functional interaction between the lithography track and the spectroscopic
ellipsometer more than a mere coupling of some unspecified nature.
Further, each of the subsystems functions independently of the other, but
both subsystems have a relation to the same specimen. Additionally, the
Examiner has set forth the claim interpretation that the ellipsometer of
Moore would have been a spectroscopic ellipsometer. (Answer, pp. 17-18).
We agree with the Examiner since the ellipsometer of Moore would have
taken multiple measurements within the spectrum and not merely work
within a limited range.
Additionally, the Examiner maintains that the interpretation given to the
term is consistent with the “definition” at page 139 of Appellants’
specification. (Answer, p. 18). While we agree with the Examiner that the
Examiner’s interpretation is consistent with Appellants’ usage at page 139,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013