Appeal No. 2004-2277
Application No. 09/886,760
Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
In the present case, the foregoing teachings and knowledge
embodied by the admitted prior art and Thomas would have
furnished the artisan with ample suggestion or motivation to
provide the admitted prior art wafer cassette handling apparatus
and method with a closed-loop position control system based on
the position measuring system disclosed by Thomas in order to
solve the known misalignment problems of this apparatus and
method, thereby arriving at the subject matter recited in claims
1 and 9.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1 and 9 as being
unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of Thomas.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 2 through 5, 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15
as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of
Thomas since the appellants have not challenged such with any
reasonable specificity, thereby allowing these claims to stand or
fall with their respective parent claims 1 and 9 (see In re
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007