Appeal No. 2006-1377 Page 4
Application No. 10/621,031
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner
and the appellants regarding this appeal, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (mailed January 20, 2006) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejection and to the appellants’ brief (filed August 29, 2005) and reply brief
(filed February 2, 2006) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration
to the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. For the
following reasons, we cannot sustain the rejection.
Appellants’ independent claims 15 and 19 each require at least one
alignment artifact disposed on a wafer assembly or wafer element and at least one
orientation artifact disposed within a wafer storage container. Claim 15 further
recites a step of engagement of the at least one alignment artifact on the wafer
assembly with the at least one orientation artifact disposed within the container and
claim 19 recites a step of placing the wafer element in the container so that the
alignment artifact of each wafer element mates with at least one orientation artifact
of the container. Neither of the applied references, alone or in combination,
teaches or suggests such a step.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007