Appeal No. 1999-1759
Application No. 08/749,614
We have carefully considered each of the points of
argument raised by appellant in the request for rehearing,
however, those arguments do not persuade us that our decision
was in error in any respect.
While it is true that the individual references relied
upon in the above-noted rejection do not expressly disclose
that a time optimal path must necessarily include simultaneous
wafer extension and rotation to achieve the high wafer
throughput and other advantages sought by appellant
(specification, page 8), we remain of the view expressed on
pages 8 through 10 of our decision mailed April 4, 2000, that
one of ordinary skill in this highly technical art would have
found reasonable suggestion in the collective teachings of the
applied references for combining them in the manner urged by
the examiner so as to result in appellant's claimed apparatus
and method wherein a time optimal path is implemented via
program code in a controller and comprises one or more regions
of simultaneous radial and rotational movement of the wafer
blade.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007