Appeal No. 2003-0809 Page 4
Application No. 09/761,296
apparatus; (2) a minimum of six input/output ports; (3) an array of storage locations for
storing an array of work in process product units; and (4) a random access
transportation means for transporting a work in process product unit at least
bidirectionally between the minimum of six input/output ports and a storage location
within the array of storage locations.
In the rejection (answer, pp. 3-6) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 before us in this appeal,
the examiner ascertained that Asakawa taught the subject matter of the independent
claims on appeal (i.e., claims 1 and 8) except for the input/output stations being
individual/independent load lock portals/ports.2 The examiner then determined that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, to
partition the input/output locations taught by Asakawa in the manner taught by Endo.
The appellants argue that the applied prior art does not suggest the claimed
subject matter. We agree. In that regard, Asakawa's stocker 1 has only four
input/output ports (openings 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d) not a minimum of six input/output ports
as claimed. Furthermore, Asakawa's stocker 1 does not have a random access
transportation means for transporting a work in process product unit at least
2 The independent claims on appeal recite a minimum of six input/output ports. The independent
claims on appeal do not recite the input/output ports being individual/independent load lock portals/ports.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007