Appeal No. 1997-3515
Application No. 08/390,226
member. As we explained above with regard to claim 5, neither
Okano nor Kemmerer overcome the problem we found with the five
references applied against claim 1. Thus, we also will not
sustain the rejection of claim 14, which is dependent from
claim 1.
Claim 20 is an independent claim that recites some of the
basic structures of the invention, but focuses upon rotating
by magnetic means a rotatable pallet inside the housing upon
which a plurality of wafers are mounted for treatment.
Specifically recited is a rotational magnetic drive unit
“located outside the housing” to impose a magnetic field
through one of the walls of the housing to rotate the pallet
without a mechanical coupling between the magnetic drive unit
outside the housing and the pallet inside the housing. The
examiner acknowledges that both of the primary references
(Norman and Bloomquist) use mechanical means to rotate pallets
upon which the wafers are carried, and opines that it would
have been obvious to replace this with magnetic means of the
type recited in claim 20 in view of the teachings of Kemmerer.
We do not agree.
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007