Appeal 2006-3349
Application 09/908,360
The challenge is to interpret claims in view of the specification without
unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.
See E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d
1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Appellants’ Specification does not expressly define the term “hub”
(Fact 3) and gives no indication that this term is being used in any manner
different from its ordinary and customary meaning (Fact 1). Consistent with
the disclosure of a hub in Appellants’ preferred embodiments, which hub
includes the housing structure connecting the robot drive components to the
upper and lower walls of the transfer chamber (Fact 2), one of ordinary skill
in the art would understand “a two robot drive hub” as recited in Appellants’
independent claims 80 and 86 to be central structure including and housing
the drives for two robots. Neither Appellants’ Specification nor the
argument in Appellants’ Appeal Brief and Reply Brief gives any indication
that the “two robot drive hub” language in claims 80 and 86 requires a
common shaft or coextensive drive shafts for the two robots or is limited, for
example, to the third embodiment, wherein the drive shafts of one of the
robots extend through lumens in the drive shafts of the other robot. In fact,
Appellants’ summary of the claimed subject matter (Appeal Br. 3) makes
reference to Fig. 1, an embodiment which does not have coextensive drive
shafts for the two robots, in discussing the two robot drive hub with four
coaxial shafts along a vertically oriented longitudinal axis.
Kojima’s motors 41, 42, drive axles 43, 44 and cases 40, connected to
transfer chamber 10, form central structure including and housing the drives
for two robots 32, 33, with the drive axles 43, 44 for robot 32 and drive axles
43, 44 for robot 33 sharing a common axis and thus being four coaxial shafts
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013