Appeal No. 2003-0614
Application 09/520,591
IV. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 18 as being
unpatentable over Tigelaar
Claim 18 depends from claim 16 and recites “a control system
coupled to the computer arrangement that shares wafer processing
data generated from prior manufacturing runs, wherein the
computer arrangement uses wafer processing data in making
adjustments to the wafer processing system.” Implicit in the
examiner’s obviousness rejection of this claim is an
acknowledgment that Tigelaar does not teach such a system.
Nonetheless, and irrespective of the appellants’ arguments (see
pages 19 through 21 in the main brief and page 6 in the reply
brief), Tigelaar’s disclosure of the host computer’s role in
controlling the overall process and in testing for process
locations and operations which may require correction would have
suggested a control system and computer arrangement as recited in
claim 18 for the purpose of effecting necessary corrections.
We shall therefore sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 18 as being unpatentable over Tigelaar.
V. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 2, 4 through 15,
17, 20 and 22 through 26 as being unpatentable over Tigelaar in
view of Bacchi
Bacchi discloses a prealigner 10 which “selectively aligns a
semiconductor wafer 12 with a predetermined position and
orientation preparatory to transferring wafer 12 to a
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007