Appeal 2006-2792
Application 10/198,688
vertical actuator to simultaneously open the pod doors of two stacked front-
opening unified pods (20, 30) (Aggarwal, col. 3, l. 65 – col. 4, l. 2). Aggarwal
does not teach or suggest using its pods doors to prevent damage to the substrates.
The Examiner has failed to provide a clear articulation of the motivation that
would have led one having ordinary skill in the art to have used the horizontal and
vertical actuators of Aggarwal in the system of Lewis to close a pod door in
response to receiving an indicia of potential substrate damage. We have reviewed
these prior art references and find that neither reference recognizes that a pod door
is suitable or could even be used to prevent substrate damage. Thus, we find no
motivation to modify Lewis to close the pod door in response to received indicia of
potential substrate damage. As such, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16, and 18 under 35 USC § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Lewis in view of Aggarwal.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 17, and 34 relies on the combined
teachings of Lewis, Aggarwal, and Nakazawa. In particular, the Examiner relies
on Nakazawa to teach the general concept of a seismic warning network (Answer
5). We agree with the Appellants that Nakazawa fails to cure the deficiencies of
Lewis and Aggarwal, because it does not teach or suggest closing a pod door in
response to a signal from a seismic warning network (Brief 7). Rather, Nakazawa
teaches automatically powering off electrical devices in response to signals from a
seismic warning network (Nakazawa, col. 18, ll. 56-61). As such, for these reasons
and the reasons provided supra regarding a lack of motivation to combine Lewis
and Aggarwal, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 5, 17, and 34.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013