Ex Parte Abraham et al - Page 13




               Appeal No. 2006-2344                                                                                             
               Application No. 10/408,890                                                                                       

               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.                   
               Further, our review of the Pedersen reference indicates that Pedersen teaches perfluoroelastomer                 
               as a type of adhesive that can be used to bond wafers in a wafer table.  See column 9, lines 8-28.               
               One of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the present invention, would have found that                    
               Pedersen’s teaching complements the APA-Akimoto-Subramanian’s system to yield the claimed                        
               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.  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 3 through 6 and 13 through 19.  Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection                  
               of claims 3 through 6 and 13 through 19.                                                                         
                                                           CONCLUSION                                                           
                      In view of the foregoing discussion, we have sustained the Examiner’s decision rejecting                  
               claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.  Therefore, we affirm.                                                










                                                              13                                                                




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007