Appeal No. 2005-0970 Page 8
Application No. 09/918,760
argument is not persuasive for the reason given above regarding
the rejection over Narita.
For that above reasons we find that the apparatus claimed in
the appellants’ claim 9 is anticipated by Nureki. Hence, we
affirm the rejection over Nureki of that claim and claims 10-15
that stand or fall therewith.
Claims 16-24
Independent claims 16 and 24 require a step of “finally
advancing the substrate to the final intended position, thereby
taking up backlash in a substrate transport system.”
The examiner argues that “[t]he method claims 6-8[2] and 16-
23 are clearly rejected based upon the rejections of the system
claims above of the system since the claimed method steps are met
by the normal and intended use of the system of Narita” (answer,
page 5). The examiner, however, provides no evidence or
reasoning which shows that the normal and intended use of
Narita’s apparatus reduces backlash. The examiner, therefore,
has not carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
anticipation by Narita of the methods claimed in the appellants’
claims 16-24. We therefore reverse the rejection of those claims
over Narita.
2
2 It is apparent that “method” in claims 6-8, which depend
from apparatus claim 5, should be “apparatus”.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007