Appeal No. 1996-2956
Application 08/152,192
different categories without the need to package and repackage
ICPUs before separate individual process operations are
performed. On page 2
of the reply brief, Appellant further argues that the prior
art does not teach the continuous linking of process stations
and the automatic movement of unenclosed ICPUs from one
process station to another process station. On page 23 of the
brief, Appellant further argues that there must be some
logical reason for combining the prior art and formulating a
rejection other than the hindsight gleaned from the invention
itself. Appellant argues that it appears that the Examiner's
compilation of prior art is not based upon any logical
connection of such art, but upon an attempt to fashion a
theory extracted from Appellant's teachings.
On page 9 of the answer, the Examiner responds to
Appellant's argument stating that it has been recognized that
any judgment on obviousness is, in a sense, necessarily a
reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. The Examiner
further states that so long as the Examiner's rejection takes
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007