Appeal 2006-2967
Application 10/832,598
moving the stage to position the lens at a desired operational
location; and
rendering the stage unmovable thereafter to lock the lens in place.
Appellants contend that Miracky does not anticipate claims 1 through
5, 9, and 18 through 22. Particularly, Appellants contend that Miracky does
not fairly teach or suggest complementarily activating actuators to move,
compress or extend one or more suspension beams to effectuate movement
of a suspended stage, as recited in independent claim 1. (Br. 4, Reply Br. 6).
Appellants also contend that Miracky does not render claims 6 through 8, 10
through 17, 23 through 26, 28 and 29 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
(a). Particularly, Appellants argue that Miracky does not fairly teach or
suggest rendering the stage unmovable to lock the lens in place, as recited in
independent claim 11. (Br. 14, Reply Br. 7).
The Examiner contends that Miracky teaches the claimed
complementary actuator activation to move the suspension beams to
effectuate movement of a suspended stage, recited in independent claim 1, as
actuators that move a stage, which in turn move the suspended beams.
(Answer 4 and 8). The Examiner further concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Miracky’s teaching to
yield the claimed invention, as recited in independent claim 11. (Answer 6
and 13).
We affirm in part.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013