Appeal 2006-2725
Application 09/982,406
1 OPINION
2 We affirm the aforementioned rejections. The Appellants do not separately
3 argue dependent claims 14, 15, 17-19, and 51 (Br. 9-12). We therefore limit our
4 discussion to independent claims 8 and 47. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
5
6 Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) over Toshio and
7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Toshio in view of Young and Hanson
8
9 Toshio discloses a substrate aligning device for transporting a substrate from
10 a substrate processing part to another processing part (Toshio, ¶ 0007). The device
11 includes a substrate supporting arm (3) having therein a supporting pin (11) that
12 supports a rolling ball (9) (Toshio, ¶ 0019; fig. 3). The upper end of the rolling
13 ball protrudes from a top plate (10) bolted onto the substrate supporting arm
14 (Toshio, ¶ 0020; fig. 3). “In order to have the function of preventing fall of rolling
15 ball (9) and to fix the position of ball supporting pin (11), a hole is formed through
16 it [the top plate] in a size that ensures that rolling ball (9) cannot be pulled from the
17 upper end surface of top plate (10)” (Toshio, ¶ 0020).3
18 The Appellants argue that Toshio lacks a formed end to retain the ball in the
19 socket and that “[a]dhesion of the ball 9 to the substrate 1 in Toshio would lift the
20 ball 9 out of the top plate 10 based on Figures 3 and 4 in Toshio” (Br. 9). That
21 lifting out would not occur because the hole in Toshio’s top plate is sized such that
22 the rolling ball cannot be pulled from the top plate’s upper surface (¶ 0020).
23 Toshio therefore has a formed end (the hole in the top plate) to retain the ball 9 in
24 the socket.
3 We need not address Young and Hansson.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013