Appeal No. 95-3698 Page 3
Application No. 08/006,717
26, 30-35, and 38-43 based on Bonora et al." The argument (pp.
1-2) raised by the appellant is that Bonora fails to
teach, show, or suggest the claimed method and apparatus
for evacuating an interim volume between two chambers when
moveable walls of both chambers are closed.
We have carefully considered the argument raised by the
appellants in their request for rehearing, however, that
argument does not persuade us that our decision was in error in
any respect.
As pointed out on pages 7-9 of our decision, we agree with
the examiner that claim 1 is anticipated by Bonora.
Specifically, we found (decision, pp. 8-9) that method step (b)
of claim 1 (i.e., removing contaminants from the interface
volume through a passage isolated from the first and second
chambers when the chamber walls are closed) was readable on
Bonora since contaminants are removed from Bonora's region 100
(i.e., the interface volume) through a passage (Bonora's port 94
leading to exhausting sink 96) isolated from the container 18
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007