Appeal 2006-2792
Application 10/198,688
BACKGROUND
The Appellants’ invention relates to a method for preventing substrate
damage in a factory interface (Specification 2). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the subject matter on appeal. A copy of all of the claims can be
found in the appendix to the Appellants’ Brief.
1. A method for preventing substrate damage in a factory interface
comprising:
receiving an indicia of potential substrate damage; and
automatically closing a pod door to a pod to prevent substrates from moving
out of a substrate storage cassette positioned in the pod in response to the received
indicia.
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Aggarwal US 6,042,324 Mar. 28, 2000
Nakazawa US 6,297,746 B1 Oct. 02, 2001
Lewis US 6,427,096 B1 Jul. 30, 2002
The following rejections are before us for review.
1. Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lewis in view of Aggarwal.
2. Claims 5 and 17 stand rejected as being unpatentable over Lewis in view of
Aggarwal and further in view of Nakazawa.
3. Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Lewis in view of Nakazawa and further in view of Aggarwal.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013