Appeal No. 2005-2545
Application No. 10/447,582
unpatentable over Boje in view of Besemer since the appellants
have not challenged such with any reasonable specificity, thereby
allowing these claims to stand or fall with parent claims 32 and
42 (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528
(Fed. Cir. 1987)).
We shall not sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 33 and 43 as being unpatentable over
Boje in view of Besemer. These claims depend from claims 32 and
42, respectively, and pertain to a heating or warming station
used with the probe arrays prior to their placement in the
scanner. Contrary to the position taken by the examiner (see,
for example, page 8 in the answer), Besemer’s disclosure that the
probe array housings may include a temperature controller and may
be cleaned after use by heating does not teach, and would not
have suggested, such subject matter.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 34 and 44 as being
unpatentable over Boje in view of Besemer and Ahn
As Ahn’s disclosure of an air guiding device for
facilitating the blowing of air over semiconductor wafers
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007