0
value of a mechanical moment of a force of gravity acting on the object table about said
reference point and a direction which is opposed to a direction of the mechanical moment
of said force of gravity.
Van Engelen claim 16 depends on van Engelen claim 3, which depends on claim 2. Van
Engelen claims 3 and 16 are as follows.
3. A positioning device as claimed in claim 2, wherein the magnet system and the electric
coil system belong to a first linear motor of the drive unit, which drive unit comprises a
second linear motor with a stationary part fastened to the second frame and a movable part
which is displaceable parallel to the X-direction over a guide of the stationary part, the
magnet system of the first linear motor being fastened to the object table and the electric
coil system of the first linear motor being fastened to the movable part of the second linear
motor.
16. A positioning device as claimed in claim 3, wherein the positioning device is provided
with a force actuator system controlled by an electric control unit and exerting a
compensation force on the first frame during operation, which compensation force has a
mechanical moment about a reference point of the first frame having a value equal to a
value of a mechanical moment of a force of gravity acting on the object table about said
reference point and a direction which is opposed to a direction of the mechanical moment
of said force of gravity.
As the movant, Lee must show that the proposed claims define the same patentable
invention as another claim whose designation as corresponding to the count the moving party
does not dispute. 3 7 CFR § 1.63 7(3)(ii). Lee has sufficiently demonstrated that van Engelen
claims 5, 13, 15, and 16 define the same patentable invention as van Engelen claims 1, 2, 3, and
11, or Lee claims 1, 2, 3 and 6 respectively in view of Schutten 5, without the teachings of Lee
'820.
In its opposition, van Engelen's primary discussion is with respect to van Engelen claims
5, 13, 15, and 16. We understand van Engelen's argument to be that since van Engelen claims 5,
13, 15, and 16 do not define the same patentable invention as any other claim designated as
corresponding to the count, then neither do those claims that depend on van Engelen claims 5,
13, 15, and 16, i.e., van Engelen claims 6-9, 14, and 18-22.
5 U.S. Patent 4,821,205, granted 11 April 1989 (Ex. 1091).
-29-
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007