Appeal 2007-1885
Application 11/000,309
circulation through the interior of the robot which is discharged to the
outside of the robot (Br. 3-4).
We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to employ manipulation means (i.e., a
robot) that includes a hollow structure wherein gas is circulated that does not
enter into the sterilized environment of the first chamber. Petersen discloses
the suitability of using a robot for manipulation of items within a sterilized
environment. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
the importance of preventing contamination of the sterilized environment.
Suzuki describes a robot for use in clean room environments. Suzuki also
recognizes the importance of isolating the interior of the robot from
communication with the sterilized environment (col. 1, ll. 37-43).
Appellants’ arguments presented in the Briefs have been considered.
We adopt the Examiner's well articulated responses to these arguments
(Answer 7-10). We add the following.
Appellants argue that there is no motivation to use the robot of Suzuki
in the clean room recited in Peterson because Petersen seeks to prevent the
withdrawal of air from the first chamber into the second chamber while
Suzuki withdraws air from the enclosed chamber into the robot (Reply Br.
3). This argument is not persuasive. A person of ordinary skill in the art
recognizes the importance of preventing contamination of the isolation
system (clean room environment). Petersen discloses that the second
chamber is isolated from the first chamber. A person of ordinary skill in the
art would understand that the use of a robot and the system of Petersen must
also be isolated from the first chamber. The test for obviousness is not
whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013