Appeal No. 2003-1639 Page 8
Application No. 09/496,220
having "one degree of freedom adapted to travel vertically" restricts the mating support
structure to only vertical travel or only that one degree of freedom of the mating support
structure is vertical travel (thus, the mating support structure may also travel
horizontally). After having interpreted the claim language and then ascertaining the
differences, if any, between Shiraiwa and claims 1 to 6, 11, 13, 15 and 18 to 22, the
examiner should then determine if any rejection under either 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 is
appropriate.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to 6, 11, 13, 15
and 18 to 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. In addition, this application has been
remanded to the examiner for further consideration.
2(...continued)
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the appellants'
specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
3 Does the phrase "shuttle table" encompass a stationary table through or by which a shuttle or
mating structure passes or does it only encompass a movable table (i.e., a table that shuttles from one
position to another)?
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007