Appeal No. 2006-2344
Application No. 10/408,890
a displaceable measuring head is arranged over the wafer table to thereby integrate a measuring
device and a notch detector. Particularly, at page 7 of the Appeal Brief, Appellants state the
following:
For example, the Akimoto reference has been cited to teach a cup-shaped table
having a support edge, however, the Akimoto reference lacks a rotary drive, an adhesive
material provided on at least one support edge, a wafer alignment device arranged in an
interior of the table, and a measuring head arranged over the wafer table.
The Subramanian reference provides no teaching for Appellant's described
measuring devices. Subramanian also lacks a wafer table with a rotary drive. There is no
cup-shaped wafer table with a support edge disclosed by Subramanian. Subramanian's
wafer table is also solid and, therefore, cannot have a wafer alignment device in an
interior of the table.
There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation from the prior art as a whole for
one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify the references to arrive at
Appellant's claimed invention.
A factor cutting against a finding of motivation to combine or modify the prior art
is when the prior art teaches away from the claimed combination. A person of ordinary
skill in the art, upon reading the Subramanian and Akimoto references, would be led in a
direction divergent from the path which the Appellant took. For example, neither
Akimoto nor Subramanian teach a wafer table equipped with a rotary drive. Both
references also teach away from a wafer alignment device ranged in the interior of the
table.
Accordingly, the Appellant respectfully argues that the cited references cannot
teach or suggest the present invention as claimed as there is no nexus between the cited
references and no motivation to combine the same. Isolated disclosures within the prior
art cannot be picked or chosen utilizing Appellant's claims as a template in order to
render the present invention obvious.
In order for us to decide the question of obviousness, “[t]he first inquiry must be into
exactly what the claims define.” In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ 545, 548 (CCPA
1970). “Analysis begins with a key legal question-- what is the invention claimed?”...Claim
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007