Appeal No. 2001-2505
Application No. 09/072,097
find no suggestion in Uehara to modify the housing 7 and the case
23 carrying pulleys 26, 22 so as to be stationary. Quite to the
contrary, Uehara discloses that it is important that the housing or
drive shaft 7 be rotatable so as to transfer objects such as
semiconductor wafers (see col. 4, lines 28 to 35). We have also
reviewed the disclosure of Poduje and find that Poduje does not
cure the deficiencies noted above for Uehara.
In view of the forgoing, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 3, 7, 11 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Uehara in view of Poduje.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 8, 15
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara in
view of Hertel. Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1, claim 15 is
dependent on claim 10, and claim 22 is dependent on claim 16. The
examiner relies on Hertel for disclosing mounting an arm on a cart
to move an arm between adjacent work stations. However, we have
reviewed the disclosure of Hertel and have determined that Hertel
does not cure the deficiencies noted above for Uehara. Therefore,
we will not sustain this rejection.
We turn lastly to the examiner’s rejection of claim 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara and Hertel and
further in view of WO 94-23911. Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007