Appeal No. 1996-2284
Application No. 08/228,889
first pair of fiducial marks of the reticle on the "one or
more alignment marks" mentioned at column 3, lines 17-21, the
claimed "pair of folding mirrors secured to said lens" on the
two unnumbered mirrors that are located between objective
lenses 7 and 7' and reticle 8, the claimed detectors on
detectors 12 and 12', which are used to detect the positions
of the reticle alignment marks (col. 3, lines 31-35), and the
claimed feedback system on processing unit 20. Although
Mitome does not mention a reticle chuck, which is recited in
claim 1, appellants do not deny the obviousness of using a
reticle chuck to hold the reticle. Nor do appellants question
the examiner's contention that it would have been obvious to
place Mitome's detectors in the image plane. Indeed,
appellants appear to concede this point by stating that Mitome
"has detectors in a reflected image plane, because the
detectors are receiving images of fiducial marks, not
diffracted light" (Brief at 4, lines 10-11). 6
Appellants criticize the rejection on a number of
6It is not necessary to address the examiner's contention
that the detectors in fact do receive diffracted light (Answer
at 4, 1st full para).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007