Appeal No. 2005-2234
Application No. 10/135,005
c) for translating the workpiece along a second axis
perpendicular to the first axis and d) for rotating the
workpiece about a third axis perpendicular to both the first
axis and the second axis, said work stage assembly having a work
stage axis substantially parallel to the third axis, and the
work stage assembly not being tiltable about the first axis or
the second axis;
a first particle beam source for interacting with the
workpiece, said particle beam source having a first particle
beam source axis, the first particle beam source axis oriented
at an acute angle greater than 0 degrees with the third axis;
and
a second particle beam source for interacting with the
workpiece, said second particle beam source having a second
particle beam source axis oriented to form an acute angle
greater than 0 degrees with the third axis, the particle beam
sources being arranged such that one of the particle beam
sources can be used to mill the workpiece and the other particle
beam source can be used to image the workpiece.
It appears from the position outlined by the examiner in
the Advisory Action that the claim language that recites that
one of the particle beams can be used to mill the workpiece and
the other particle beam source can be used to image the
workpiece does not limit the scope of the claim. We disagree.
In view of the aforementioned recitation found in claim 21, it
is self-evident that a respective particle beam is oriented in
such a fashion in order to perform a respective function of
milling or imaging the workpiece. It appears that the examiner
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007