Appeal No. 2004-0595
Application No. 09/747,201
consideration, the following two groups of claims stand or fall
together: (I) claims 1-10 and 21; (II) claims 11-20 and 22.1
We consider first the examiner's § 103 rejection of claims
1-10 and 21. Appellant maintains that the examiner has
improperly found that effectors 50 and 52 are mounted on stage 12
because, in fact, the effectors are mounted on trolley 42, which
movement is completely separate from the X and Y movement of
stage 12. The examiner responds that claims 1 and 21 only
require that the effector be "attached to the bed." The examiner
offers the following explanation:
Nowhere do the claims require the same X-Y drives that
move the bed to be the same drive means which cause the
effector(s) to pull the wafers from the cassettes.
Thus, the fact that the effectors of Schram et al are
moved by separate X and Y drives does not preclude the
reference from reading on the claim language. Further,
despite appellant's assertion to the contrary, the
effectors of Schram et al are "attached to" the bed, as
broadly claimed, via guide rods 58 and support blocks
59, as disclosed in col. 6, lines 36-40. The claim
language is simply not specific enough to preclude such
an interpretation [page 5 of Answer, first paragraph].
The flaw in the examiner's reasoning is that claims 1 and 21
are not so broad that they allow for the effector to be moved in
the X and Y directions by a drive means separate from the bed,
1 As noted by the examiner, the examiner's withdrawal of
claims 23-28 from consideration is a petitionable matter that is
outside the scope of review of this Board. Likewise, the
examiner's treatment of appellant's IDS is a petitionable matter.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007