Appeal No. 2000-1713
Application 09/025,551
In view of the above claim interpretation, we now analyze
the examiner’s rejections.
As indicated by appellants on page 3 and page 4 of the
brief, neither Miller nor Yamaki teach or suggest controlling
the shape of the reference plane to a planar shape by
deforming the workpiece (deforming as used here means
deforming caused when the workpiece 10 is deformed along the
shape of the workpiece holding face 22 of chuck 40 which is
deformed by the operation of the surface straightening portion
42, thereby straightening the reference plane; deforming as
used here does not mean elastic deforming caused by grinding
or polishing).
The examiner interprets the Miller reference as
controlling the shape of the reference plane during the
grinding operation. (answer, page 3). Hence, the examiner is
misinterpreting the claims with respect to the phrase "by
deforming". Additionally, on page 5 of the answer, the
examiner clearly is interpreting Miller as deforming due to
grinding (and therefore not due to the control of the
reference plane of the workpiece as discussed above).
We observe that Miller does not suggest deforming in the
manner as interpreted above. That is, Miller does not control
the shape of the reference plane by utilizing forces caused
when a workpiece 10 is deformed along the shape of a workpiece
holding face 22 of chuck 40 which is deformed by the operation
of a surface straightening portion 42. The examiner has not
shown that Miller provides such control by such forces.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007