Appeal No. 2004-1834
Application No. 10/158,885
coordinates are stored in a wafer map data file, as broadly claimed. As another
example, appellant makes much of the claimed step of “moving wafer table to the last
left column of the partial wafer and determining the coordinates” by arguing that the
reference does not suggest this. However, the examiner very reasonably points to
Figure 15, and column 5, lines 14-20, of Balamurugan, wherein Figure 15 shows
movement to the last left column of the partial wafer, and column 5, lines 14-20, clearly
point to determining coordinates, as broadly claimed. For all of appellant’s posturing
about the differences between the “new method” of the instant invention and the prior
art, as depicted by Balamurugan, appellant has not convinced us of any error in the
examiner’s rationale regarding the broad recitations of the instant claims.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
With regard to claim 2, appellant argues that the “last column in the present
application is not dependent on their (sic, there) being a reference die or any die in the
reference die row and in some cases does not have to be searched for but given in the
header” (principal brief-pages 11-12). Again, appellant argues generalities as to the
instant disclosed invention, without pointing to any specific claim language upon which
he relies for patentability. Accordingly, and in view of the examiner’s reasonable
explanation as to how Balamurugan is applied to the claim, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007