Appeal No. 2003-0745 Page 6
Application No. 09/161,970
The appellant's argue (brief, pp. 8-11) that the applied prior art does not teach or
suggest a semiconductor processing system comprising (1) a mini-environment defined
by a wall and having an atmospheric robot disposed therein; (2) a load lock chamber
connected to the mini-environment having a transfer robot disposed therein; and (3) a
process chamber connected to the load lock chamber as recited in the claims under
appeal. We agree. In our view, absent the use of impermissible hindsight,1 there is no
teaching, suggestion or motivation in the applied prior art for a person of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Maydan's system to arrive
at the claimed invention. Specifically, it is our view that an artisan would not have found
it obvious to have modified Maydan's system to include an atmospheric robot disposed
in Maydan's mini-environment (i.e., external cassette elevator 24) from the teachings of
Asakawa. In that regard, the systems of Maydan and Asakawa are sufficiently
disparate in our opinion that one skilled in the art would not have modified Maydan's
external cassette elevator 24 to have included a robot.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1
to 4, 6 to 11, 47, 49 and 51 to 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
1 The use of hindsight knowledge derived from the appellant's own disclosure to support an
obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is, of course, impermissible. See, for example, W. L. Gore
and Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007