Appeal No. 2003-0614
Application 09/520,591
starts, the recitation in claim 14 that the rotating device is
adapted to rotate the wafer axially to the exclusion of certain
areas on the wafer, the recitation in claim 15 that the rotating
device is adapted to rotate the wafer axially to the exclusion of
a certain processing step in the system, and the recitation in
claim 20 of a wafer carrier movement detector for determining the
“rate” of rotation of the carrier moving through the wafer
processing system. In short, the examiner has failed to proffer
the evidentiary basis necessary to bridge these gaps.
Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 5, 6, 9 through 12, 14, 15, 17 and 20 as
being unpatentable over Tigelaar in view of Bacchi.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 26
is affirmed with respect to claims 1 through 4, 7, 8, 13, 16, 18,
19 and 21 through 26, and reversed with respect to claims 5, 6, 9
through 12, 14, 15, 17 and 20.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007