Appeal No. 2003-0614
Application 09/520,591
tracks the rotational orientation of each wafer when initially
placed within the cassette and also the rotation of each wafer
imparted by the rotating tool after a selected processing step
(and hence before the next processing step). Given these
functions, the host computer necessarily embodies means for
determining an incoming angle of rotation on a wafer at a first
stage of wafer processing as recited in claim 1. Similarly,
Tigelaar’s robot arm and rotating tool, in conjunction with the
host computer, respectively constitute a sorting apparatus that
identifies a wafer and places the wafer in a carrier (cassette)
slot and a rotating apparatus that rotates the wafer to an
incoming angle of rotation as the wafer is presented to a first
processing stage of wafer processing as recited in claim 16.
Thus, the appellants’ argument that the subject matter recited in
independent claims 1 and 16, and dependent claims 3, 19 and 21,
distinguishes over Tigelaar is not persuasive.
We shall therefore sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of claims 1, 3, 16, 19 and 21 as being anticipated by
Tigelaar.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007