Appeal 2006-2792
Application 10/198,688
Rather than reiterate in detail the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellants regarding this appeal, we make reference to the final
Office Action (mailed October 14, 2004), the Advisory Action (mailed December
23, 2004), and the Examiner's Answer (mailed March 30, 2006) for the Examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to the Appellants’ Brief (filed
July 6, 2005) and Reply Brief (filed November 21, 2005) for the Appellants’
arguments.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully considered the
Appellants’ specification and claims, the applied prior art, and the respective
positions articulated by the Appellants and the Examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations that follow.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lewis in view of Aggarwal. The Examiner determined
that Lewis teaches a method of preventing damage to substrates by sensing
misalignment of the substrates or by sensing a seismic event through the use of an
accelerometer and pushing the substrates back into the cassette. The Examiner
admits that Lewis does not teach pushing the substrates back into the cassette by
closing the door of the pod (Final Office Action 2).
The Examiner relied on Aggarwal to teach a method of moving a pod door
in a first direction and then laterally in a second direction to close the pod. The
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013