Appeal No. 2004-0312
Application No. 09/277,534
The above discussed deficiencies of Curtze and Lisec ‘555
would remain even if modified in the manner proposed by the
examiner in his § 103 rejections. It follows that we
additionally cannot sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 5
as being unpatentable over Lisec ‘555 and Curtze. Moreover,
because appealed independent claim 7 requires at least one vacuum
chuck having the same capability discussed above, we likewise
cannot sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 7-9 based on Lisec
‘555 in view of Lisec ‘244 or the § 103 rejection of claims 7 and
8 based on Curtze in view of Lisec ‘244.
In summary: we have sustained the examiner’s § 102 rejection
of claim 14 as being anticipated Perobelli; however we have not
sustained any of the other rejections advanced by the examiner on
this appeal.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007