Appeal No. 2004-1357
Application 09/587,281
reference teach what the subject application teaches, but only
that the claim read on something disclosed in the reference,
i.e., that all of the limitations in the claim be found in or
fully met by the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
As persuasively argued by the appellants (see pages 4
through 6 in the main brief and pages 1 through 4 in the reply
brief), Nishida does not meet the limitation in claim 4 requiring
the step of arranging a cutting tool at an inclined angle
“wherein the inclined angle of the cutting tool is adjusted
according to a form of the chamfered part of the wafer and a
finishing thickness of the wafer.” While the conventional method
disclosed by Nishida, and relied on by the examiner in this
regard, embodies the step of arranging a cutting tool at an
inclined angle (see Figure 2B), Nishida does not teach that this
step involves any adjustment of the angle according to the form
of the chamfered part of the wafer and the finishing thickness of
the wafer. The examiner’s finding to the contrary (see pages 4
through 6 in the answer) rests on a manifestly unreasonable
interpretation of the claim language at issue.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007