Appeal No. 1999-2220 Page 3
Application No. 08/662,930
appellant regarding the rejections, we make reference to the
final rejection (Paper No. 10) and the Examiner’s Answer (Paper
No. 17), and to the appellant’s Briefs (Papers Nos. 16 and 18).
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles
of inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention.
See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671,
1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15
USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We find this not to be the
case here, and therefore we will not sustain this rejection.
Our reasons for arriving at this conclusion follow.
Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, the presence of
“substrate processing chambers” (emphasis added), a first one
of which is vertically oriented in a plane above a second one,
with each of them being separately and independently connected
to the transport chamber and forming separate and independent
isolated substrate processing areas therein.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007