Appeal No. 2003-0931
Application 09/383,508
recited in claim 10) for retrieving reticles from and inserting
them into cassette slots. Finally, the detailed description of
Figure 4 on pages 7 and 8 in the specification delineates a
process flow for a sorter having both a cassette “docking
location” and something called a “docking bay.”
Notwithstanding the appellants’ position to the contrary,
the foregoing inconsistencies in the underlying specification
involving the use of the terms “bays,” “docking locations,”
“docking location” and “docking bay” justify the examiner’s
determination that the above noted recitations in claims 1, 10
and 19 relating to the bays and docking locations, read as they
are required to be in light of the specification, render the
scope of the appealed claims unclear.
We shall therefore sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, rejection of claims 1 through 4, 6 through 12
and 19.
Since the change of the word “bays” in claims 1 and 19 to
either “docking locations” or “locations” in all occurrences of
“bays” would overcome the rejection of claims 1 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we exercise our authority
under 37 CFR § 1.196(c) and give the appellants the right to
amend claims 1 and 19 by amending all occurrences of the word
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007