Appeal No. 96-1179
Application 08/190,622
appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 1. In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1987); Ex parte Schier, 21 USPQ2d 1016, 1018-19 (Bd. Pat. App.
& Int. 1991). See also 37 CFR 1.192 c(7) and c(8).
Appealed claims 1, 2, 7 and 8 stand rejected 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Talieh in view of either of
Hanfmann, Ohji or Riley.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant's arguments
for patentability as they appear in the principal and reply
briefs. However, we concur with the examiner that the claimed
subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the
applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the
examiner's rejection for essentially those reasons expressed
in the Answer.
Appellant states the following at page 12 of the
principal brief:
The major elements of Claim 1 are a chamber, a target
holder, a wafer holder, a collimator, and a drive means.
Appellant hereby stipulates that the first five elements,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007