Appeal 2007-2909
Application 10/622,063
1
2 The Examiner’s Response
3 14. The Examiner argued that Barrey describes a six axis robot and
4 that such a robot is inherently capable of permitting translation in a plane
5 and rotation about an axis generally parallel to a plane, citing as examples of
6 such robots to be found in US Patents 6,039,375; 5,890,656; 5,833,147;
7 5,777,267 (Answer 7-8).
8 15. The Examiner further argued that the Barrey end effector must be
9 able to rotate in order to manipulate the tool as described, e.g., in three
10 dimensions, and in order to maintain the substrate in proper relationship to
11 the stationary dispenser (Answer 8).
12 D. Principles of Law
13 A claimed invention is not patentable if the subject matter of the
14 claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
15 skill in the art. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct.
16 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
17 383 U.S. 1 (1966).
18 Facts relevant to a determination of obviousness include (1) the scope
19 and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed
20 invention and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art and (4) any
21 relevant objective evidence of obviousness or non-obviousness. KSR,
22 82 USPQ2d at 1388, Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18.
23
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013