Appeal No. 2000-2093 Page 10
Application No. 08/730,385
and appellant’s grouping of the claims (Brief, page 3) we shall, sustain this rejection. In
this regard, to the extent that the intent of the appellant’s argument on pages 7 and 8 of the
Brief regarding operating parameters is intended to apply to dependent claim 15, the
appellant has pointed out to us no reason from which to conclude that Shendon’s
apparatus is not capable of causing the wafer to complete “between 10 and 30 rotations
for each revolution of the handle about the shaft.”
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 5, 9 and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is not
sustained.
The rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Shendon is sustained.
The rejection of claims 5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Shendon is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Shendon is sustained.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007