Appeal No. 2003-0931
Application 09/383,508
always in light of the teachings of the prior art and of the
particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted by
one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art.
Id. When considered in light of the prior art and the appliction
disclosure, claims otherwise indefinite may be found reasonably
definite, and claims definite on their face may be found
indefinite. In re Kroekel, 504 F.2d 1143, 1146, 183 USPQ 610,
612 (CCPA 1974).
In the present case, the summary of the invention on pages 2
and 3 in the appellants’ specification mirrors the language
employed in claims 1 and 19 by stating that the reticle sorter
includes one or more “bays” each capable of holding a cassette
having slots for reticles. In contrast, the detailed description
of Figures 1, 2, 3A and 3B on pages 3 through 6 in the
specification (1) refers to “bays” only with respect to Figure 1
which depicts a sorter-less prior art fabrication plant 100
including fabrication areas or “bays” 110 having tools for
processing semiconductor wafers, and (2) portrays the reticle
sorters 230 and 300 shown in Figures 2, 3A and 3B as having
“docking locations” 310 (but no “bays”) for holding cassettes, a
“docking location” 350 for holding reticles, and an arm 330 (not
a sorting system including two or more docking locations as
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007