Ex Parte LEE - Page 24





                  detail and should have discussed what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood                                       
                  from reading the specification and looking to the figures. Satisfaction of the written description                                 
                  requirement does not require the description of claim terms to be ipsis verbis antecedent in the                                   
                  originally filed application. In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 969,169 USPQ 795, 796 (CCPA 1971).                                       
                  It is what the specification would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art as to what the                                
                  inventors possessed at the time of the invention. Based on the record before us, the '558                                          
                  specification supports a radiation source supported by a machine frame.                                                            
                          A stationM part of the drive unit fastened to the first frame                                                              
                          Lee claim 4 recites a drive unit comprising a stationary part which is fastened to a second                                
                  frame of the positioning device. Van Engelen argues that Lee '558 fails to provide support for                                     
                  any stationary part of the drive unit that isfastened to a second frame. Van Engelen provides no                                   
                  meaningful explanation as to why the '558 application fails to describe a stationary part of the                                   
                  drive unit that is fastened to a second frame, and thus has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate                               
                  that the '558 application fails to describe the claimed feature. Accordingly, we need not                                          
                  independently make the determination as to whether the '558 application does describe a                                            
                  stationary part of a drive unit that is fastened to the second frame.                                                              
                          hi any event, we note that the '558 application describes a reticle stage drive unit' that                                 
                  includes X axis linear motors comprised of magnetic tracks 62A and 62B and magnetic coils                                          
                  60A and 60B and Y axis linear motors comprised of magnetic tracks 70A and 70B and coils 68A                                        


                          ' We recognize that the '558 application describes an embodiment of a reticle drive unit                                   
                  for moving a reticle stage and not a wafer stage drive unit for moving a wafer stage. However,                                     
                  the '558 application states in at least two places that the embodiment described maybe used for                                    
                  a wafer stage for processing a wafer (substrate) (Ex. 2036, at 3, lines 21-26 and 5, lines 31-33).                                 
                                                                        -24-                                                                         







Page:  Previous  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007