Holbrooks v. bacchi et al - Page 6




               Interference No. 105,028                                                                                          

               Figure 2b, the width of the side of the finger is substantially uniform, not recessed at one end                  
               from the location of the notch or groove 126.  In the embodiments presented in the Holbrooks                      
               application, the plurality of fingers or posts grip or grasp the wafer, without a lower surface 42 of             
               the grooves being disclosed as a pad portion for supporting the wafer.  It is not sufficient for                  
               inherency that a person following the disclosure of Holbrooks might obtain the result set forth in                
               the claims, it must invariably happen.  Scaltech Inc. v. Retec/Tetra, LLC., 178 F.3d 1378, 1384,                  
               51 USPQ2d 1055, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Snitzer v. Etzel, 531 F.2d 1062, 189 USPQ 415 (CCPA                        
               1976).  Bacchi has established that a person following Holbrooks’ disclosure would not                            
               invariably obtain the subject matter set forth in the claims of a pad portion for supporting the                  
               edge of a specimen or wafer.                                                                                      
                      The fact that the primary examiner ultimately found that Holbrooks’ specification                          
               complied with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is not controlling as to the                  
               written description issued raised by Bacchi.  The Board is not bound by a  primary examiner’s                     
               decision on an issue of patentability because 37 CFR § 1.633(a) provides for motions for                          
               judgment against a party by an opponent on the grounds of unpatentability of the party’s                          
               involved claims.  As to the Fiers case, it is not controlling here.  Fiers stands for the proposition             
               that once a primary examiner in ex parte practice accepts the sufficiency of a specification such                 
               as Holbrooks’, the inventor has no further burden to prove before the examiner by extrinsic                       
               evidence that its application satisfies the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first             
               paragraph.  In contrast, this is an inter partes proceeding before the Board.  Bacchi filed its                   
               Motion 3 under 37 CFR § 1.633(a) and challenged Holbrooks’ compliance with the written                            
               description requirement of the above statute.  Whereas that portion of Fiers relied on by                         

                                                               -6-                                                               



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007