Ex Parte Abraham et al - Page 11




               Appeal No. 2006-2344                                                                                             
               Application No. 10/408,890                                                                                       

               table as the arm of a robot comprising said wafer table is rotating.  It is our view that one of                 
               ordinary skill in the art would have duly realized that the teachings of Akimoto and Subramanian                 
               complement APA’s teachings to yield the invention as set forth in representative claim 1.                        
               Particularly, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have readily been apprised of the fact that                   
               Akimoto’s teaching of a cup-like wafer table with a support edge in addition to Subramanian’s                    
               teaching of using adhesive material in lieu of a vacuum suction mechanism would reinforce                        
               APA’s disclosed measurement module to meet the claim limitations.                                                
                      Appellants further argue that the combination of the cited references with APA would not                  
               be proper since there is no nexus between the references, that such a combination could only be                  
               achieved through the use of impermissible hindsight reasoning, and that Akimoto and                              
               Subramanian teach away from APA’s teaching. It has been held that “[a] reference may be said                     
               to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged                  
               from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the              
               path that was taken by the applicant.”  In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 53, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1131                      
               (Fed. Cir. 1994).  It has also been held that teaching away an alternative or equivalent method                  
               does not teach away from the use of a claimed method.  In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 438, 146                        
               USPQ 479, 483 (CCPA 1965).  In this case, we find that Akimoto and Subramanian do not teach                      
               away from Geiger.  At the time of the invention, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have looked                
               to the teachings of Akimoto and Subramanian as a viable alternative in order to produce a cup-                   
               like wafer table with adhesive lining as opposed to APA’s suction mechanism to firmly hold the                   
               wafer in place as the drive rotates.  Additionally, we find that the ordinarily skilled artisan would            

                                                              11                                                                




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007