Appeal No. 2006-3246
Application No. 09/956,849
simultaneously (Brief, pp. 1-12). The Examiner sets forth a rationale for
why Moore would teach or fairly suggest the measurement at multiple
locations of the specimen at substantially the same time (Answer, p. 19).
We do not find that Appellants have rebutted the Examiner’s position, and
Appellants rely upon the language of the limitation without further
argument. We find that Appellants have not identified why the Examiner is
in error in the prima facie case. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not
persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of claims 6201 and 6202.
With respect to dependent claims 6212 and 6213, we find that the
Examiner has not elaborated upon the statement of the rejection in the
Answer in response to Appellants’ argument. From our review of the
language of claim 6212 and Appellants’ argument at pages 12-13 of the
Brief, we agree with the Examiner’s rejection. We find that the language of
dependent claim 6212 recites “a stage coupled to the spectroscopic
ellipsometer is configured to move the specimen from the spectroscopic
ellipsometer to the lithography track during use” and that the stage is not
required to move the specimen from one chamber to the other. Here, all that
is required is that the stage is configured to move. We find that the stage
and the robot arm are configured to work together to carry out and complete
the movement of the specimen. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not
persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of claims 6212 and 6213.
With respect to 6216, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in
relying upon the upper surface of the robot to teach the support device.
(Brief, p. 13 and Reply Brief, pp. 1-2). We agree with Appellants and find
that the Examiner has not explained how the robot of Moore supports the
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013