Appeal 2006-3349
Application 09/908,360
(Figs. 5-7), but do indicate that the second embodiment is like the
first, except that a central column 120 spans the gap between the base
12b and cover 12a of the transfer chamber 112 (Specification [0046]).
In Appellants’ third embodiment (Figs. 8-10), the motors 1004, 1006
for driving the upper robot 14 are suspended from the transfer
chamber below the motors 1004’, 1006’ for driving the lower robot 16
and an additional pair of concentric shafts extend from the upper robot
motors 1004, 1006 through the center of the lower robot motors
1004’, 1006’ and the hub 1100 (see Fig. 9), which, like the central
column 120 of the second embodiment, spans the gap between the
base and cover of the transfer chamber (Specification [0049]). The
fourth embodiment (Figs. 11-12) utilizes a central hub 210 including
bearings 228a, 228b and secondary bearings 232a, 232b. The drive
arms 214a, 214b of the robots are pivotally connected to drive blocks
226a, 226b in outer races of bearings 228a, 228b and the secondary
arms 216a, 216b are pivotally connected to secondary blocks 230a,
230b supported on secondary bearings 232a, 232b (Specification
[0052]).
3. Appellants’ Specification does not provide an express definition of the
term “hub.” Moreover, Appellants do not offer a definition of “hub”
in their Appeal Brief or Reply Brief.
4. As best seen in Figs. 2 and 3, Kojima’s substrate transfer device
comprises upper and lower robots 32, 33 each including an arm part
31 coupled to a drive part 30. Each drive part 30 includes two motors
41, 42 and two concentric drive axles 43, 44 for rotating and
articulating arm part 31. Further, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the drive
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013