Appeal No. 2000-0909
Application No. 08/784,752
[Paragraph numbers in brackets added]
At the outset, we note that the examiner has withdrawn
the specific grounds set forth in paragraphs [4] and [5],
above. See main brief, p. 12 and the answer, p. 10.
We do not agree that claims 27 through 34 are incomplete
for “failing to actually transferring [sic] discrete areas as
the preamble states.” See paragraph [1], above. Both
independent claims 27 and 33 require a “transfer station”
including “at least one contact area that repetitively presses
the carrier against the substrate.” Thus, actual structure is
recited in the body of each claim “for transferring discrete
areas” as set forth in the preamble.
We also find no merit in the examiner’s criticisms of
claims 27 through 34 because of the phrases identified in
paragraphs [2] and [3] or the failure to claim the sensor
targets in paragraph [6], above. In our view, the cited
phrases and the omission of the sensor targets do not make the
metes and bounds of the claimed invention indefinite.
With regard to the specific grounds set forth in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007