Appeal No. 1996-2284 Application No. 08/228,889 grounds, the first being that Mitome is not concerned with correcting misalignments resulting from environmental effects on the lens, as recited in the preamble of claims 1 and 5 and also in the "whereby" clause in claim 1. This argument is unconvincing because appellants have not explained why Mitome's system will not inherently correct misalignments of this type while it is correcting misalignment errors between the reticle and the wafer. This argument is also inconvincing with respect to claim 5 on the ground that the body of that claim fails to specify that the misalignment to be corrected is due environmental effects on the lens. The recitation to this effect in the preamble of the claim is, in our view, a statement of intended use and thus entitled to no weight. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479-80, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Appellants also characterize Mitome as "directed to correcting positioning of the wafer" (Brief at 4). This characterization is only partly correct; Mitome corrects the positions of the reticle and the wafer. See col. 4, line 68 to col. 5, line 3 ("the processing unit 20 controls the reticle driving system 21 and the wafer driving system 22 so 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007