Ex Parte Hofmeister et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 6, 2009

10624987 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 6, 2009)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 4
____________________ 5
6
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 7
AND INTERFERENCES 8
____________________ 9
10
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER HOFMEISTER and ROBERT T. CAVENEY 11
____________________ 12
13
Appeal 2008-1263 14
Application 10/624,987 15
Technology Center 3600 16
____________________ 17
18
Decided:1 February 6, 2009 19
____________________ 20
21
Before: WILLIAM F. PATE, III, JENNIFER D. BAHR, and 22
FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges. 23
24
SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judge. 25
26
27
DECISION ON APPEAL 28
29
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 30
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a Final Office 31
Action of claims 1-38 and 40-42. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 32
§ 6(b) (2002). 33

1 The two month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-1263
Application 10/624,987

2
1
SUMMARY OF DECISION 2
We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 3
THE INVENTION 4
The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a substrate 5
processing apparatus with chambers interconnected in a Cartesian 6
arrangement (Spec.1:7-10). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of 7
the subject matter on appeal. 8
1. A substrate processing apparatus comprising: 9
a transport chamber capable of holding an 10
isolated atmosphere isolated from atmosphere exterior 11
to the transport chamber; 12
at least one substrate holding module for holding a 13
substrate, the at least one holding module being 14
communicably connected to the transport chamber for 15
allowing transfer of the substrate between the at 16
least one holding module and transport chamber; 17
18
a transport vehicle movably mounted in the transport 19
chamber, the vehicle having a base and a substrate 20
transfer arm that is movably jointed and movably 21
mounted to the base; and 22
23
another module capable of holding the substrate and 24
communicably connected to the transport chamber for 25
transferring the substrate therebetween, 26
27
wherein the transport chamber defines a linear travel slot 28
for the vehicle, the at least one holding module being 29
located on one side of the slot, and the arm having 30
articulation for moving a substrate to opposite sides of 31
the slot allowing the other module to be selectably 32
connected to the transport chamber on either side of the 33
slot, wherein the transport vehicle can effect transfer of 34
Appeal 2008-1263
Application 10/624,987

3
the substrate between the transport chamber and both the 1
at least one holding module and the other module. 2
3
THE REJECTIONS 4
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of 5
unpatentability: 6
Mori US 5,641,054 Jun. 24, 1997 7
Harada US 5,700,127 Dec. 23, 1997 8
Hayashi US 2002/0044860 A1 Apr. 18, 2002 9
Tepman US 2002/0061248 A1 May 23, 2002 10
Mizokawa US 2002/0150448 A1 Oct. 17, 2002 11
12
The following rejections are before us for review: 13
1. Claims 1, 10, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (1975), 14
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point 15
out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicants regard as 16
the invention.2 17
2. Claims 1, 5-10, 13, 15-20,3 22-38 and 40-42 is rejected under 35 18
U.S.C. § 102(e) (2002) as being as being anticipated by Mizokawa. 19

2 The Final Office Action mailed April 5, 2005, included a rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 112. The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection was not set forth in the
Grounds of Rejection section of the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3). The 35
U.S.C. § 112 rejection was argued by both the Appellants (Br. 8) and the
Examiner (Ans. 9). The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of those claims pending
in this application has been treated in this Decision On Appeal.
3 Further, the Grounds of Rejection section of the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.
3) stated that claim 21 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102, that is, claim 21
was incorrectly grouped (“15-38”) with the claims being rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102. The Final Office Action mailed April 5, 2005, only contained
a rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, claim 21 has
been so treated in this Decision On Appeal.
Appeal 2008-1263
Application 10/624,987

4
3. Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2004) as being 1
unpatentable over Mizokawa in view of Harada. 2
4. Claims 11, 12, 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2004) 3
as being unpatentable over Mizokawa in view of Tepman. 4
5
ISSUES 6
The issues before us are whether the Appellants have shown that the 7
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 10, 14 and 16 as being indefinite; 8
claims 1, 5-10, 13, 15-20, 22-38 and 40-42 over Mizokawa; claims 2-4 over 9
Mizokawa in view of Harada; and claims 11, 12, 14 and 21 over Mizokawa 10
in view of Tepman. These issues turn on whether: (1) Mizokawa discloses a 11
transport chamber capable of holding an isolated atmosphere isolated from 12
atmosphere exterior to the transport chamber as called for in claims 1 and 13
10; (2) Mizokawa discloses a chamber having at least one of a minimum 14
chamber width, or a minimum substrate transfer opening width for a given 15
reach of the substrate transfer arm as called for in claim 10; (3) Mizokawa 16
discloses how the transfer arm is moved as called for in claims 9 and 17; (4) 17
Mizokawa discloses the particular vehicle path as called for in claim 20; and 18
(5) Mizokawa discloses the particular shape of the vehicle as called for in 19
claim 40. 20
21
FINDINGS OF FACT 22
We find that the following enumerated findings are supported by at 23
least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 24
1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for 25
proceedings before the Office). 26
Appeal 2008-1263
Application 10/624,987

5
1. The Appellants’ Specification discloses a substrate processing 1
apparatus (10 and 10’) comprising a transport chamber (18, 18A, 2
18B and 602-626) capable of holding an isolated atmosphere 3
isolated from atmosphere exterior to the transport chamber 4
(Spec.11:3-6; Spec.12:14-18; and Spec.23:10-20), at least one 5
substrate holding module (20 and 630-652) for holding a substrate 6
(figs. 2-7A), a transport vehicle (22, 122A, 122B and 406) 7
movably mounted in the transport chamber, the vehicle having a 8
base (156) and a substrate transfer arm (22A, 158 and 160) that is 9
movably jointed and movably mounted to the base, another module 10
(20 and 630-652) capable of holding the substrate and 11
communicably connected to the transport chamber, wherein the 12
transport chamber defines a linear travel slot (18A and 18B) for the 13
vehicle. 14
2. The Appellants’ Specification further discloses that a linear motor 15
(30) is connected to the transfer arm for rotating the arm relative to 16
the base and articulating the arm in opposite directions (Spec.14:3-17
25). 18
3. The Appellants’ Specification still further discloses that the 19
transport chamber has at least one of a minimum chamber width or 20
a minimum substrate transfer opening width for a given reach of 21
the substrate transfer arm (Spec.40:7-17). 22
4. The Appellants’ Specification still further discloses multiple 23
vehicles (406 and 700) extending from one wall across to an 24
opposite wall, wherein the vehicles are capable of moving past one 25
Appeal 2008-1263
Application 10/624,987

6
another (Spec.25:28-Spec.26:4 and Spec.32:19-33) (figs. 11B, 1
13B). 2
5. Mizokawa discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising a 3
transport chamber (14) capable of holding an isolated atmosphere 4
isolated from atmosphere exterior to the transport chamber (paras. 5
[0032] and [0047]), at least one substrate holding module (A-Z) for 6
holding a substrate (figs. 3, 7 and 9), a transport vehicle (12) 7
movably mounted in the transport chamber, the vehicle having a 8
base and a substrate transfer arm (45, 45a and fig. 4) that is 9
movably jointed and movably mounted to the base, and another 10
module (A-Z) capable of holding the substrate and communicably 11
connected to the transport chamber, wherein the transport chamber 12
(14) defines a linear travel slot for the vehicle. 13
6. Mizokawa further discloses a linear motor for moving the vehicle 14
(para. [0033]). 15
7. Mizokawa still further discloses multiple vehicles (12AM and 16
12NZ) movable in the transport chamber by a linear motor (para. 17
[0057] and fig. 9). 18
8. Harada discloses a substrate processing system (1) having a 19
cassette supply (6), a transfer arm (415), substrate processing 20
chambers (481 and 482) and multiple load lock chambers (483-21
485) (col. 15-, l. 28-col. 16, l.46; and fig. 11). 22
9. Tepman discloses a semiconductor wafer processing system (100) 23
having a transfer chamber (110), processing chambers (112 a-c), 24
robots (transfer arms) (114 and 116), a load lock chamber (230) 25
having an opening (238), wherein the opening is closed by a door 26
Appeal 2008-1263
Application 10/624,987

7
(292) to provide a vacuum sealing of the load lock chamber 1
(230)(para. [0027], and figs. 1 and 2). 2
10. The ordinary meaning of the word “isolate” is to “set apart from 3
others.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1996). 4
11. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1996) defines 5
the term “clean room” as “a room for the manufacture or assembly 6
of objects (for precision parts) that is maintained at a high level of 7
cleanliness by special means.” 8
9
PRINCIPLES OF LAW 10
Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error 11
in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 12
2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection 13
[under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness 14
or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of 15
nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 16
1998)). 17
The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is 18
whether “those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the 19
claim is read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety 20
Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations 21
omitted). 22
Definiteness problems often arise when words of 23
degree are used in a claim. That some claim 24
language may not be precise, however, does not 25
automatically render a claim invalid. When a word 26
of degree is used the [factfinder] must determine 27
whether the patent's specification provides some 28
Appeal 2008-1263
Application 10/624,987

8
standard for measuring that degree. The 1
[factfinder] must decide, that is, whether one of 2
ordinary skill in the art would understand what is 3
claimed when the claim is read in light of the 4
specification. 5
Seattle Box Co. v. Indust. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 6
(Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming the trial court’s determination that an expert 7
would know the limitations of the claims because the Specification clearly 8
sets forth a standard for measuring the degree used in the claim language). 9
Even if a person of ordinary skill would need to experiment so as to 10
determine the limits of a patent's claims, the claims would not be invalid 11
under section 112. See, e.g., W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 12
721 F.2d 1540, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1983). 13
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference 14
discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every 15
element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., 16
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In other words, there must be no 17
difference between the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as 18
viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention. Scripps 19
Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 20
1991). It is not necessary that the reference teach what the subject 21
application teaches, but only that the claim read on something disclosed in 22
the reference, i.e., that all of the limitations in the claim be found in or fully 23
met by the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772 24
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984). 25
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences 26
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such 27
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the 28
Appeal 2008-1263
Application 10/624,987

9
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said 1
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 2
(2007); 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007). The question of obviousness is 3
resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the 4
scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed 5
subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) where 6
in evidence, so-called secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 7
383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1734 (“While the 8
sequence of these questions might be reordered in any particular case, the 9
[Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that controls.”) 10
When construing claim terminology in the United States Patent and 11
Trademark Office, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable 12
interpretation consistent with the Specification, reading claim language in 13
light of the Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill 14
in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 15
2004). 16
17
ANALYSIS 18
35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph Rejection. 19
20
The Examiner’s basis for rejecting claims 1, 10, 14 and 16 under 35 21
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly 22
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicants regard as 23
the invention are that it was unclear whether the “at least one holding 24
module” (cl. 1, l. 19) refers to “a substrate holding module” (l. 6) or “another 25
module capable of holding the substrate” (l. 10); whether "reach" (cl. 10, ll. 26
20 and 26) refers to the reach of a transport vehicle base (l. 20) or the reach 27
Appeal 2008-1263
Application 10/624,987

10
of a transport vehicle transfer arm (l. 19); whether “other module” (cl. 14, l. 1
3) references “one processing module” (cl. 10, l. 6) or “another module” (cl. 2
10, l. 12). Further, the Examiner stated that there was no antecedent basis 3
for the limitation “the first chamber” as called for in claim 16, line 4. (Final 4
Office Action p. 2). 5
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 14, Appellants argue that the claims are 6
definite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (Br. 8-10) since it is 7
clearly set forth in the claims which limitation is being referred to by “the at 8
least one holding module” as called for claim 1, “a reach” as called for in 9
claim 10, and by “the other module” as called for in claim 14. We agree 10
with Appellants (Br. 8-10) and find that in claim 1, it is clear that the 11
limitation “the at least one holding module” (cl. 1, 14, Br. 22) refers to the 12
limitation “at least one substrate holding module” (cl. 1, l. 5, Br. 22); in 13
claim 10, it is clear that the limitation “a reach” (cl. 10, l. 20, Br. 24) refers 14
to the limitation “a jointed substrate transfer arm” (cl. 10, l. 19, Br. 24) and 15
in claim 14, it is clear that the limitation “the other module” (cl. 14, l. 3, Br. 16
25) refers to the limitation “another module” (cl. 10, l. 12, Br. 24). 17
Regarding claim 14, we additionally find that claim 10, line 23 (Br. 24) calls 18
for the limitation “the other module.” Therefore, the antecedent basis for the 19
limitation “the other module” as called for in claim 14, line 3 is “the other 20
module” as called for in claim 10, line 23 (Br. 24). Further, claim 10, lines 21
22 and 23 (Br. 24) call for the limitations “the at least one processing 22
module” and “the other module” as two separate elements. We conclude 23
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 10 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 24
112, second paragraph. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 10 25
and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112. 26
Appeal 2008-1263
Application 10/624,987

11
Regarding claim 16, Appellants state that an amendment has been 1
submitted to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (Br. 10). We 2
agree with the Examiner’s analysis (Ans. 10) that since the amendment to 3
claim 16 was not entered the rejection of claim 16 stands and that there is no 4
antecedent basis in either claims 10 and 16 for the limitation “the first 5
chamber” as called for in claim 16, line 4 (Br. 25). Therefore, we affirm the 6
rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112. 7
8
Prior Art Rejection. 9
10
Mizokawa discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising a 11
transport chamber (14) capable of holding an isolated atmosphere isolated 12
from atmosphere exterior to the transport chamber (paras. [0032] and 13
[0047]), at least one substrate holding module (A-Z) for holding a substrate 14
(figs. 3, 7 and 9), a transport vehicle (12) movably mounted in the transport 15
chamber, the vehicle having a base and a substrate transfer arm (45, 45a and 16
fig. 4) that is movably jointed and movably mounted to the base, another 17
module (A-Z) capable of holding the substrate and communicably connected 18
to the transport chamber, wherein the transport chamber (14) defines a linear 19
travel slot for the vehicle (Fact 5). 20
21
Rejection of claims 1, 5-8, 10, 13, 15, 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being as 22
being anticipated by Mizokawa; claims 2-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 23
being unpatentable over Mizokawa in view of Harada; and claims 11, 12 24
and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mizokawa in 25
view of Tepman. 26
27
Appeal 2008-1263
Application 10/624,987

12
Appellants state that Mizokawa discloses that chamber 14 is a clean 1
room, wherein the atmosphere inside chamber 14 communicates with the 2
outside atmosphere through vents. Therefore, Appellants contend that 3
Mizokawa fails to disclose a chamber capable of holding an isolated 4
atmosphere that is isolated from an atmosphere exterior to the chamber as 5
called for in claims 1 and 10 (Br. 11). When construing claim terminology 6
in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, claims are to be given 7
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, 8
reading claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted 9
by one of ordinary skill in the art. (See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.) 10
The ordinary meaning of the word “isolate” is to “set apart from others.” 11
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1996) (Fact 10). 12
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1996) defines the term 13
“clean room” as “a room for the manufacture or assembly of objects (for 14
precision parts) that is maintained at a high level of cleanliness by special 15
means” (Fact 11). Mizokawa’s discloses that chamber 14 is a clean room 16
that has a higher cleanliness than the outside (para. [0032]). Therefore, the 17
chamber 14 has an atmosphere that is different than the outside atmosphere. 18
Since the atmosphere in chamber 14 is different from the outside 19
atmosphere, and since it is in a location that is different from the outside 20
atmosphere, the atmosphere in chamber 14 is considered to be set apart from 21
the outside atmosphere and is, thus, isolated from the outside atmosphere. 22
We agree with the Examiner’s analysis (Ans. 11 and 12) and find that 23
Mizokawa’s chamber is a chamber capable of holding an isolated 24
atmosphere that is isolated from an atmosphere exterior to the chamber as 25
Appeal 2008-1263
Application 10/624,987

13
called for in claims 1 and 10; claims 2-8 depending from claim 1 and claims 1
11-16 depending from claim 10. 2
Regarding claim 10, Appellants further contend that Mizokawa is 3
silent as to disclosing a chamber having at least one of a minimum chamber 4
width, or a minimum substrate transfer opening width for a given reach of 5
the substrate transfer arm (Br. 15). In Mizokawa, the transfer arm (45, 45a) 6
exchanges one wafer at a time by entering into a duct (16a) from the 7
chamber (14) (para. [0035]). The width of the chamber (14) along with the 8
reach of the transfer arm (45,45a) permits the transfer arm to perform the 9
exchange. If the chamber were too wide or the transfer arm’s reach were too 10
short, the transfer arm would not be able to perform the exchange. Thus, the 11
chamber must have a width, a minimum width, to coincide with the reach of 12
the transfer arm to permit the transfer arm to perform the exchange. 13
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s analysis (Ans. 12) and find that 14
Mizokawa discloses a chamber having at least one of a minimum chamber 15
width, or a minimum substrate transfer opening width for a given reach of 16
the substrate transfer arm as called for in claim 10. Therefore, in view of the 17
above, we affirm the rejections of claims 1, 5-8, 10, 13, 15 and 16 under 35 18
U.S.C. § 102, and claims 2-4, 11, 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 19
20
Rejection of claims 9, 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being as being 21
anticipated by Mizokawa. 22
23
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Appellants contend that Mizokawa fails to 24
expressly disclose what drives the arm (45) to move up, down, left, right and 25
rotate (Br. 14 and 16). The Examiner contends that Mizokawa’s motor 26
inherently powers robot (transfer arm) and thus Mizokawa discloses all of 27
Appeal 2008-1263
Application 10/624,987

14
the limitations in the claims (Ans. 12 and 13). We agree with Appellants 1
and find that as Mizokawa is silent as to how the arm (45) is driven, it is 2
speculative at best as to what actually provides the power to drive the arm. 3
Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9 and 4
17, and claims 18 and 19 depending from claim 17 over Mizokawa. We 5
reverse the rejection of claims 9 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 thereof. 6
7
Rejection of claims 20, 22-38 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being as being 8
anticipated by Mizokawa; and claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being 9
unpatentable over Mizokawa in view of Tepman. 10
11
Regarding claims 20, 22, 28, 30 and 31; Appellants contend that 12
Mizokawa does not disclose another chamber communicably connected to 13
the first chamber via a closable opening of the first chamber, wherein the 14
opening is configured to enable the vehicle to transit between the first 15
chamber and the other chamber through the opening (Br. 16-18). While the 16
Examiner contends that Mizokawa discloses a first chamber (14) and 17
another chamber (A-D) (Ans. 5), we do not find any disclosure in Mizokawa 18
that states that the vehicle (12) goes through a closable opening between 19
chambers (14) and (A-D) to transit into the chamber (A-D) as called for in 20
claim 20. Therefore, we agree with Appellants and conclude that the 21
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 20, 22, 28, 30 and 31, and claims 23-27, 22
29 and 32-38 depending therefrom over Mizokawa, and claim 21 over 23
Mizokawa in view of Tepman. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 24
20, 22-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 25
26
Appeal 2008-1263
Application 10/624,987

15
Rejection of claims 40-42 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being as being 1
anticipated by Mizokawa. 2
3
Regarding claim 40, Appellants contend that Mizokawa does not 4
disclose a first vehicle that extends across the chamber from proximate one 5
wall to proximate another wall, as neither of the mobile elements (12AM) 6
and (12NZ) are wide enough to extend across the chamber (fig. 9) (Br. 20). 7
We agree with Appellants and find that the Mizokawa figure 9 embodiment 8
referenced by the Examiner (Ans. 7, 13 and 14) does not disclose a first 9
vehicle that extends across the chamber from proximate one wall to 10
proximate another wall as called for in claim 40. Therefore, we conclude 11
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 40-42 over Mizokawa and we 12
reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 thereof. 13
14
CONCLUSION OF LAW 15
We conclude that the Appellants have not shown that the Examiner 16
erred in rejecting claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112; claims 1, 5-8, 10, 13, 15 17
and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Mizokawa; claims 18
2-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mizokawa in view 19
of Harada; claims 11, 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being 20
unpatentable over Mizokawa in view of Tepman. We conclude that the 21
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 10 and 22
14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112; claims 9, 17-20, 22-38 and 40-42 under 35 U.S.C. 23
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Mizokawa; and claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 24
103(a) as being unpatentable over Mizokawa in view of Tepman. 25
26
Appeal 2008-1263
Application 10/624,987

16
DECISION 1
The decision of the Examiner to reject claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 2
is affirmed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 5-8, 10, 13, 15 3
and 16 over Mizokawa is affirmed. The decision of the Examiner to reject 4
claims 2-4 over Mizokawa in view of Harada is affirmed. The decision of 5
the Examiner to reject claims 11, 12 and 14 over Mizokawa in view of 6
Tepman is affirmed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 10 and 7
14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is reversed. The decision of the Examiner to reject 8
claims 9, 17-20, 22-38 and 40-42 over Mizokawa is reversed. The decision 9
of the Examiner to reject claim 21 over Mizokawa in view of Tepman is 10
reversed. 11
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with 12
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007). 13
14
AFFIRMED-IN-PART 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Appeal 2008-1263
Application 10/624,987

17
1
2
3
4
5
6
LV: 7
8
9
PERMAN & GREEN 10
425 POST ROAD 11
FAIRFIELD CT 06824 12