Appeal No. 2003-0214
Application 09/441,490
and the substrate handling tool may be interchangeable
components removably mountable on the robot arm. A
combination of interchangeable and fixed tools can also
be used [column 2, lines 1 through 10].
In proposing to combine Corsini and Genov to reject
independent claims 1, 27 and 30, the examiner states that
Corsini discloses that all components may be replaced
by mechanical equivalents (col 5 lines 45+). Corsini
does not show the concept of controlling the arm using
robotic control means. Genov et al teach the concept
of using a single robot means to perform multiple
functions, such as, removing an article and loading
chamber doors and transferring other articles (col 1
lines 60+). It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
to provide Corsini with a single robot means to perform
multiple functions as taught by Genov et al to
eliminate separate stations [Paper No. 7, page 2].
The examiner’s analysis distills the appellants’ invention
to a gist or concept while ignoring express limitations in the
claims. This superficial mode of claim interpretation is
improper as it disregards the claimed subject matter as a whole.
See Bausch & Lomb, Inc., v. Barnes-Hind/Hydrocurve Inc., 796 F.2d
443, 448-49, 230 USPQ 416, 420 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied,
484 U.S. 823 (1987). Even if the Genov reference is deemed to be
analogous art (the appellants urge that it is not), its
disclosure of a multi-function robot arm specifically designed
for use in a semiconductor load lock chamber would not have
suggested modifying the palletizing apparatus and method
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007