Ex Parte LEE - Page 33




                force actuator system to compensate for the forces of both the stages/holders acting on a common                                     
                frame, since Schutten itself teaches compensating for all forces acting on a common frame.                                           
                        Van Engelen fails to sufficiently address Lee's argument. That Schutten fails to teach two                                   
                stages, and an actuator system that compensates for the movement of two stages misses the point.                                     
                Van Engelen should have explained why Lee's analysis was erroneous. Instead, van Engelen                                             
                side steps Lee's argument altogether. Accordingly, van Engelen has failed to sufficiently rebut                                      
                Lee's primajacie case with respect to van Engelen claim 13.                                                                          
                        Van Engelen's discussion with respect to Schutten's horizontal forcers is irrelevant. Lee                                    
                did not rely on the Schutten horizontal forcers to teach the force actuator system claimed in van                                    
                Engelen claim 5, 13, 15, and 16.                                                                                                     
                        Van Engelen argues that Lee fails to point to any teaching in the Lee '820 patent of an                                      
                electronic control unit. Lee's reliance on the '820 patent was in the alternative only. As stated                                    
                above, Lee made a prima facie case based on the van Engelen claims 1, 2, 3, and I I in view of                                       
                Schutten without relying on the '820 patent.                                                                                         
                        For the above reasons, van Engelen has failed to sufficiently rebut Lee's prima facie case                                   
                of obviousness with respect to van Engelen claims 5, 13, 15, and 16.                                                                 
                        The remaining van Engelen claims (6-9, 18-22 and 14)                                                                         
                        Van Engelen claims 6-9 and 18-22 depend either directly or indirectly from van Engclen                                       
                claim 5. Van Engelen claim 14 depends from van Engelen claim 13. Lee has sufficiently                                                
                demonstrated that the van Engelen claims 6 and 7 define the same patentable invention as van                                         
                Engelen claim I or Lee claim 1 in view of Schutten. Lee has also sufficiently demonstrated that                                      
                van Engelen claims 8, 9 and 18-22 define the same patentable invention as van Engelen claim 1,                                       
                or Lee claim I in view of Schutten and Akutsu 6 . Lastly, van Engelen has sufficiently                                               


                         6 EOP 647 788 BI, published 12 April 1995 (Ex. 1092).                                                                       
                                                                      -33-                                                                           







Page:  Previous  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007