Ex Parte LEE - Page 13





                would have been obvious to employ the Isohata shared frame concept with the system claimed in                                        
                Lee claim 4 or Lee claim 6. However, as the movant, van Engelen should have at least discussed                                       
                any prior art, like Isohata, that appears relevant to the analysis. Van Engelen's failure to discuss                                 
                any prior art known to it, or to allege that it is unaware of any prior art that would render Lee                                    
                claim 5 obvious, given Lee claim 4 or Lee claim 6 is critical. Without such a discussion, we will                                    
                not simply imagine or suppose that van Engelen is unaware of any prior art that would render Lee                                     
                claim 5 obvious in view of Lee claim 4 or Lee claim 6, or that van Engelen is of the opinion that                                    
                given Lee claim 6 or Lee claim 4 as prior art, that the closest prior art that it is aware of would                                  
                not render Lee claim 5 obvious. To suppose such a fact would be unfair and prejudicial to the                                        
                party Lee. Lastly, we note that Lee claim 6 recites "a machine frame which, ... supports ...               a                         
                mask holder ...   and a substrate holder." Lee claim 6 appears to recite the precise feature that van                                
                Engelen states is "introduced" in Lee claim 5.                                                                                       
                         For all of these reasons, van Engelen preliminary motion 4 is denied. Since van Engelen                                     
                has failed to set forth aprimafacie case for the relief requested, we need not and have not                                          
                considered Lee opposition 4.                                                                                                         
                         Van Engelen preliminaa motions 5, 7 and 9 and Lee preliminga motions 8 and 12                                               
                         Van Engelen moves to add a count 2, identical to Lee claim 5, to the interference                                           
                (preliminary motion 5). Van Engelen moves for benefit of proposed count 2 (preliminary motion                                        
                7), and moves to deny Lee the benefit of its earlier filed applications with respect to proposed                                     
                count 2 (preliminary motion 9). Lee moves to be accorded benefit of van Engelen's proposed                                           
                count 2 (preliminary motion 8), or its modified count 2 (preliminary motion 12). Van Engelen                                         
                preliminary motions 5, 7 and 9, and Lee preliminary motions 8 and 12 are ultimately contingent                                       

                                                                      - 13-                                                                          






Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007