Ex Parte RYAN et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2003-0931                                                        
          Application 09/383,508                                                      


               1. A reticle sorter coupled between a reticle storing system           
          and one or more photolithography exposure tools, comprising:                
               one or more bays adapted for holding a cassette having slots           
          for reticles;                                                               
               a sorting system adapted for retrieving the reticles from              
          and inserting the reticles into the slots in order to sort the              
          reticles within the cassette; and                                           
               an inspection system, coupled between the one or more bays             
          and an input port of the reticle sorter, for inspecting a                   
          characteristic of each reticle.                                             
               10. The reticle sorter of claim 1, wherein the sorting                 
          system includes two or more docking locations.                              
               19. A reticle sorter coupled between a reticle storing                 
          system and one or more photolithography exposure tools,                     
          comprising:                                                                 
               one or more bays adapted for holding a plurality of                    
          cassettes having slots for reticles; and                                    
               a sorting arrangement adapted for retrieving the reticles              
          from and inserting the reticles into the slots so as to sort the            
          reticles between cassettes.                                                 
                                   THE REJECTION                                      
               Claims 1 through 4, 6 through 12 and 19 stand rejected under           
          35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing to particularly               
          point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the appellants            
          regard as the invention.                                                    
               Attention is directed to the appellants’ brief (Paper No.              
          20) and to the examiner’s final rejection and answer (Paper Nos.            




                                          2                                           



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007