Appeal No. 2004-1863
Application 09/470,835
the respective arguments concerning whether the surface of the wafer is a part of the apparatus.
While the “wafer receiving surface” is the surface of a wafer that can be treated by the apparatus,
and thus does not in fact structurally limit the claimed apparatus,3 such “receiving surface” can
serve to specify the relative positions of the nozzle and the monitoring receiver with associated
energy source or emitter.
There is no dispute that thickness measuring section 509 is in a different location in the
apparatus disclosed in Ushijima than developing section 506 as shown in Ushijima FIG. 6, and
this disclosure is so relied on by the examiner. Thus, we find as a matter of fact that Ushijima
does not describe an apparatus encompassed by appealed claim 17, as we interpreted these
claims above, and therefore, does not describe the claimed apparatus within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 102(b). Accordingly, we reverse this ground of rejection as a matter of fact.
With respect to the grounds of rejection over Ushijima alone and as combined with
Akimoto and Lin under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we fail to find any teaching in these references as
applied that would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in this art the arrangement of the
nozzle and the monitoring receiver with associated energy source or emitter required by
appealed independent claims 7 and 17 as we interpreted these claims above. Accordingly, we
reverse these grounds of rejection as a matter of law.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
Reversed
3 See generally, In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40, 136 USPQ 458, 459-60 (CCPA 1963); In re
Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45, 9 USPQ 71,
72-73 (CCPA 1935).
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007