Appeal No. 2003-0548 Page 3
Application No. 09/370,599
The sole prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Sato et al. (Sato) 5,286,296 Feb. 15, 1994
Claims 14-20, 29, 31-35, 38-53, 60-66 and 69-75 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sato.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced
by appellants and the examiner and have determined that the
inventions recited in appellants’ claims 40 and 41 are
unpatentable. Accordingly, we sustain the aforementioned
rejection of those claims. However, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 14-20, 29, 31-35, 38, 39, 42-53, 60-66 and
69-75 on this record. Our reasons follow.
Appellants, in essence, present the following groups of
claims: 1) claims 14-20, 29, 31-35, 38, 39, 42-53, 60-66 and 69-
75 and 2) claims 40-46. Appellants identify claims 42-46 as
being a part of each claim grouping, which claims do not stand or
fall together with either grouping.
Each of the claims in appellants’ first claim grouping
including separately argued claims 42-46 requires an apparatus
for processing a substrate including first and second substrate
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007