Appeal No. 1999-1759
Application No. 08/749,614
combination of references in hindsight" (request, page 2), is
belied by the disclosure in the applied references and
appellant's own specification. As an example, both the Lucas
patent (col. 3, lines 48-59) and appellant's specification
(e.g., page 4) emphasize increased throughput as an advantage
or objective of their respective systems, with Lucas
specifically seeking to increase throughput by shortening the
transfer time of the robot and, more specifically, by
producing a time optimal robot arm trajectory for increasing
substrate handling tool throughput. Thus, in our view,
increased throughput would be recognized by one of ordinary
skill in the art as a desirable objective and would clearly
provide an adequate motivation for combining references, like
those selected and applied by the examiner, in this art.
As for appellant's assertion (request, page 2) that the
references "do not even suggest a wafer blade path that
includes simultaneous rotation and extension," we find such
position to be contrary to the clear teaching and suggestion
in Lowrance at column 7, lines 6-9, wherein that patentee
suggests that combinations of motor rotations therein "can be
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007