Appeal No. 2005-2489
Application No. 09/949,736
dimensionally controlled movable target plate” “which can be
rotated” and linearly moved. See column 7, lines 61 and 62 and
column 8, lines 57-62. According to Gartner, this target plate
can be moved in x-y direction and is capable of receiving and
supporting (holding) a stack of target materials. See column 10,
lines 42-51. Thus, it is reasonable for the examiner to conclude
that the stage recited in claims 19 and 37 encompasses the target
plate taught by Gartner. The burden is on the appellant to show
that the target plate taught by Gartner does not possess the
claimed function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44
USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997), quoting In re Swinehart,
439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971)(“Where the
Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation
asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed
subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the
prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to
prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does
not possess characteristic relied on.”). However, on this
record, the appellant has not carried such burden.
Second, we find that Gartner teaches that the target plate
“is continuously moved on in a computer-controlled manner.” See
column 8, lines 30-31. Thus, we find that Gartner necessarily
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007