Van Engelen makes no meaningful attempt to explain why Lee's claims are separately
patentable in view of van Engelen's claims or vise versa. It is not enough to point out differences
and conclude that there is no interference-in-fact. Nor is it meaningful to argue that one party's
specification is separately patentable over the other parties specification, or that one party's
claims are separately patentable over the opponents specification. The appropriate comparison is
between the claims and not the disclosures. For all of these reasons, van Engelen has failed to
sufficiently demonstrate that there is no interference-in-fact. Van Engelen preliminary motions I
and 2 are denied.
Van EnRelen preliminary motion 3
During oral argument, counsel for Van Engelen withdrew van Engelen preliminary
motion 3 from consideration (Paper 128 at 84-85). Accordingly, van Engelen preliminary
motion 3 is dismissed.
Van Engelen 12reliminM motion 4
Van Engelen moves to undesignate van Engelen claim 12 and Lee claim 5 from
corresponding to the count. Van Engelen claim 12 is reproduced below:
12. A lithographic device as claimed in claim 10, wherein the mask holder is
displaccable perpendicularly to the Z-direction by means of said positioning device as
claimed in wherein the first frame of the positioning device of the mask holder belongs to
the machine frame of the lithographic device, while the second frame of the positioning
device of the mask holder belongs to the force frame of the lithographic device.
Lee claim 5 is as follows:
5. A lithographic device as claimed in claim 4, wherein the mask holder is displaceable
perpendicularly to the Z-direction by means of a mask holder positioning device that is
similar to the positioning device of the substrate holder, and wherein a first frame of the
mask holder positioning device belongs to the machine frame of the lithographic device,
-10-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007