Appeal No. 2004-0595
Application No. 09/747,201
appellant contends that the effector of Wooding is a
conventional, large robotic arm, we are convinced that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to size the
effectors appropriately to accomplish the task at hand. As noted
by the examiner, it is not necessary for a finding of obviousness
that the features of one reference be physically incorporated
into the features of another reference. We are satisfied that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
incorporate well-known rotary movement in the effectors of Schram
in order to "increase throughput by allowing faster and more
precise movement off the wafer onto the chuck" (examiner's Final
Rejection, Paper No. 5, page 6, paragraph three). We note that
appellant has proffered no objective evidence of nonobviousness,
such as unexpected results, to rebut the prima facie case of
obviousness.
Appellants have not offered a separate substantive argument
for the § 103 rejection of claim 20 over Schram and Wooding
further in view of Mallory.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's § 103
rejections of claims 1-10 and 21 are reversed, whereas the § 103
rejections of claims 11-20 and 22 are affirmed. Accordingly,
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007