Appeal 2006-2792
Application 10/198,688
Examiner found that manipulating the door in this manner would inherently
prevent damage to substrates in the pod. As such, the Examiner concluded
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to have
modified the process of Lewis et al by closing the door of
the pod to push the substrates back into the cassette and
thus prevent damage thereto, as Aggarwal et al show that
it is well known to close a pod door in a manner that
would prevent damage to the substrates, and since this
would have the added benefit of a closed pod which
would protect the substrates against damage or
contamination caused by the earthquake or misalignment
(Final Office Action 2-3).
We agree with the Appellants, as argued on page 5 of their Brief, that there
is no suggestion or motivation in the prior art that would have led one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the method of
Aggarwal in the system of Lewis to prevent damage to the substrates in the
cassette. Lewis teaches only two methods, i.e., tilting or using a robotic arm, for
returning the substrates to the cassettes after sensing a disturbance (Lewis, col. 21,
l. 65 – col. 22, l. 5). Lewis also teaches that if the motion sensor detects movement
of the wafers sufficient to displace them, the controller may terminate further
operation of the interface apparatus to allow for human intervention (Lewis, col.
22, ll. 5-11). We find that Lewis does not teach or suggest closing the pod door in
response to a sensed indication of potential substrate damage to prevent the
substrates from moving out of the cassette.
Aggarwal similarly does not teach or suggest using a pod door to prevent
substrate damage. Aggarwal teaches using a single horizontal actuator and a single
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013