Appeal No. 2003-0614
Application 09/520,591
argued the limitations in independent claims 4, 22 and 23 which
are similar to the argued limitations in independent claims 1 and
16 (see pages 10 through 12 in the main brief), such arguments
are unconvincing for the reasons expressed above in connection
with claims 1 and 16.
We shall therefore sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 13 and 22 through 26 as being
unpatentable over Tigelaar in view of Bacchi.
The combined teachings of Bacchi and Tigelaar do not
account, however, for the recitations in claims 5 and 12 that the
rotating device or sorting apparatus “randomly” rotates the wafer
axially, the recitations in claims 6 and 17 that the rotating
device is adapted to impart or rotate a translation angle, the
recitation in claim 9 that the sorting apparatus is adapted to
place multiple sets of wafers in a carrier and arrange each set
in a different rotation angle with respect to the adjacent set of
wafers, the recitation in claim 10 that the sorting apparatus is
adapted to arrange all of the wafers in the carrier such that
each has a distinct angle of rotation from any other wafer in the
carrier, the recitation in claim 11, which depends from claim 10,
that the sorting apparatus is adapted to verify that all of the
wafers have a distinct angle of rotation before processing
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007