Appeal No. 2000-1010 Page 3
Application No. 08/951,402
substrate chambers are moved to positions communicating with
said airlock stations.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Takahashi et al. (Takahashi) 4,643,629 Feb. 17, 1989
Anderle et al. (Anderle) 4,886,592 Dec. 12, 1989
Ikeda 5,183,547 Feb. 02, 1993
Schwartz et al. (Schwartz) 5,518,599 May 21, 1996
Patz et al. (Patz) 5,698,039 Dec. 16, 1997
(filed Jan. 17, 1996)
LeBlanc, III et al. (LeBlanc, III) 5,709,785 Jan. 20, 1998
(filed Jun. 04, 1996)
Claims 6-8, 10 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Patz in view of Schwartz and
Takahashi. In a separate § 103 rejection of claim 9, the
examiner additionally relies on Anderle and in a separate § 103
rejection of claims 11 and 12, the examiner adds Ikeda and
LeBlanc, III.
We refer to appellants’ briefs and the answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints of appellants and the
examiner concerning the rejections before us.
OPINION
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we concur with appellants that the examiner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007