Appeal No. 95-3698 Page 4
Application No. 08/006,717
(i.e., the first chamber) and the processing station 8 (i.e.,
the second chamber) when the box door 32 and the port door 28
and the port door cover 110 (i.e., the chamber walls) are
closed.
The appellants' argument set forth in request for
rehearing, which argument was previously set forth by the
appellants in the brief (pp. 6-8) and the reply brief (pp. 2-3),
remains unpersuasive since the argument is not commensurate in
scope with claim 1. In that regard, claim 1 does not require
the interface volume to be evacuated when the moveable walls of
both chambers are closed as argued by the appellants. Claim 1
only requires that contaminants are removed from the interface
volume through a passage isolated from the first and second
chambers when the chamber walls are closed, which limitation is
met by Bonora.
In light of the foregoing, the appellants' request for
rehearing is granted to the extent of reconsidering our
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007