Appeal 2006-2564
Application 10/259,743
3) Claims 13, 17, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combined disclosures of Skrovan, Calio, and Aigo.
IV. FACTUAL FINDINGS, ANALYSES, AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Having carefully evaluated the claims, Specification and prior art
references, including the arguments advanced by both the Appellant and the
Examiner in support of their respective positions, we determine that the
Examiner’s §§ 102 and 103 rejections are well founded. Accordingly, we
will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the factual findings and
conclusions set forth in the Answer. We add following primarily for
emphasis and completeness.
ANTICIPATION
To support anticipation under § 102(e), the prior art reference relied
upon by the Examiner must disclose, either expressly or inherently, each and
every element of a claimed invention. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15
USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prior art reference only needs to
describe something that reads on the claims on appeal. Kalman v. Kimberly-
Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Applying the above principle of law, the Examiner has found
(Answer, 3) that:
Calio teaches an agitating apparatus for processing
semiconductor wafers, which comprises a bath (reads on “a
tank for holding a chemical bath liquid”, as instantly claimed),
the said bath is filled with the processing liquid; a dispersion
plate and a baffle (reads on “producing means, located within
the tank for producing a physical action within the liquid” as
instantly claimed); a timer, connected to a dispersion plate[,]
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013