Appeal No. 2003-0745 Page 5
Application No. 09/161,970
reasonable degree of precision and particularity. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 958,
189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976). In our view, the specific rationales raised by the
examiner go to the breadth of the claims and breadth of a claim is not to be equated
with indefiniteness. See In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693, 169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA
1971).
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1
to 4, 6 to 11, 16 to 18, 47, 49 and 51 to 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
reversed.
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 4, 6 to 11, 47, 49 and 51 to 53
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In the two rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 before us in this appeal (answer, pp.
4-5), the examiner (1) ascertained that Maydan does not disclose an atmospheric robot
disposed in his mini-environment (i.e., external cassette elevator 24); and
(2) determined that it would have been obvious to have included an atmospheric robot
disposed in Maydan's mini-environment "to facilitate pod movement" as suggested and
taught by Asakawa.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007