Appeal No. 2001-2505
Application No. 09/072,097
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 15) for the
examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
the brief (Paper No. 12) for the appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
Opinion
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to the appellant’s specification and claims, to the
applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 10,
16 and 23 to 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or in
the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Uehara.
Appellant’s subject matter as depicted in Figures 3 and 4 and
recited in claim 1 is a substrate transport apparatus which
includes a drive section 36 and a moveable arm assembly 38
connected to the drive section 36. The arm assembly 38 includes
two driven arm assemblies 56 and 58. The arm assemblies 56 and 58
have an inner arm 60 and 66 respectively and an outer arm 62 and 68
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007