Appeal No. 1999-0282 Page 8
Application No. 08/716,995
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
Claims 5 and 10
The examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is founded on the theory that all the limitations
of parent claim 1 are disclosed by Muka. However, such is not
the case for the reason set forth above.
Since the examiner has not established that all the
limitations of claims 5 and 10 are obvious from the applied
prior art, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 5 and
10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Claims 20 through 22
Independent claim 20 recites a processing station
including, inter alia, a load lock, a transport chamber, a
transport apparatus, and a connecting tunnel having a
horizontally disposed slot located in an abutment face thereof
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007