Appeal No. 2006-2344
Application No. 10/408,890
have been properly motivated to combine the cited references as they are within the same field of
endeavor, and that the proposed combination would result in a more accurate wafer measurement
system, as contemplated by all three references in the respective textual portions cited above.
Consequently, we do not find error in the Examiner’s stated position, which concludes that the
combination of APA, Akimoto and Subramanian teaches a measuring table having a cup-shaped
wafer table with a rotary drive and an edge support with adhesive material, wherein an alignment
device is arranged in the interior of the wafer table and a displaceable measuring head is
arranged over the wafer table to thereby integrate a measuring device and a notch detector.
It is therefore our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence
relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to the ordinarily
skilled artisan the invention as set forth in claims 1, 2, 7 through 12 and 20. Accordingly, we
will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 7 through 12 and 20.
II. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is the Rejection of Claims 3 through 6 and 13 through 19
as being unpatentable over the combination of APA, Akimoto, Subramanian and Pedersen
Proper?
With regard to claims 3 through 6 and 13 through 19, Appellants argue at page 9 of the
Appeal Brief that the combination of APA, Akimoto, Subramanian and Pedersen does not teach
or suggest the claimed limitation of a measuring system having a cup-like wafer table with
adhesive lining for securing the wafer in place as the drive rotates, wherein the adhesive is
perfluoroelastomer. As indicated in the discussion of representative claim 1 above, the
combination of APA, Akimoto, Subramanian teaches a measuring table having a cup-shaped
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007