Appeal No. 2002-1823
Application 09/575,551
In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir.
1983). The content of the drawings may also be considered in
determining compliance with the written description requirement.
Id.
A review of the appellants’ original disclosure shows that
claim 65 does in fact read on a processing method embodying the
loading subsystem 600 shown in Figures 40 through 49. In
describing these drawing figures, the original specification
states that “Fig. 40 in particular shows the important parts of
this loading subsystem in isolation from other parts of a system
otherwise similar to processing system 40. Figs. 41-49 show
schematic representations of an alternative processing system
otherwise similar to processor 40 which has been adapted to
include loading subsystem 600” (page 52). In processor 40, robot
arm 157 moves along a guide track 258 to carry wafers between an
interface section 43 and processing stations 71-73 (see page 25
in the original specification and Figures 13 through 15).
Consistent therewith, Figure 49 shows “wafer transfer robot 157
in position to engage wafer carrier 51 for movement to a desired
processing chamber” (specification, page 56). Figure 49 also
shows wafer transfer robot 157 mounted for movement on the guide
track 258 in a direction perpendicular to the direction in which
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007