Appeal No. 1999-0282 Page 6
Application No. 08/716,995
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 4-6) that Muka does not
anticipate each and every element recited in claims 1 and 17
and that the examiner has failed to give an element by element
account of each and every limitation found in claims 1 and 17.
After review of the claimed subject matter of claims 1
and 17 and the disclosure of Muka, we conclude that the
appellant is correct that Muka does not anticipate each and
every element recited in claims 1 and 17. In that regard, we
find no disclosure in Muka of "a horizontally disposed slot"
as recited in independent claim 1 or "a horizontally extending
slot" as recited in independent claim 17. In addition, it is 3
our view that the examiner's reading of the claimed "swap out
plate" to be readable on Muka's chamber 50 and a portion of
chamber 32 to be inappropriate. Accordingly, we agree with
the appellant's argument (brief, pp. 11-12) that Muka fails to
3While Muka's chamber 50 (i.e., interface valve) between
the load lock 32 and the transport chamber 38 inherently has
an opening to the transport chamber 38, it is not inherent
that such an opening be a slot as such forth in claims 1 and
17.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007