Appeal No. 2006-1479
Application No. 10/324,660
1 the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Clay, 966
2 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re
3 Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ 313, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
4 Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979).
5 Even assuming that McPhail is not considered to be from Appellants’
6 field of endeavor, McPhail does address the problem of providing a linear
7 actuator to selectively actuate linear movement when a certain condition is
8 detected. In particular, McPhail provides actuators 74, 76, 78, 80 comprised
9 of pneumatic expansible-chamber actuators (cylinders) with connecting rods
10 82, 84, 88, 90 (col. 4, ll. 47-63). The actuators 74, 76, 78, 80 communicate
11 with a suitable source of compressed gas (col. 4, ll. 71-72) and are controlled
12 by suitable electromechanical control units 96, 98, 100, 102 (col. 4, ll. 73-
13 75). Appellants likewise are concerned with providing at least one linear
14 actuator to selectively actuate the at least one wafer press 12 when wafer
15 protrusion is detected. We therefore conclude that McPhail is reasonably
16 pertinent to the problem of selectively operable linear actuation with which
17 Appellants were involved. Accordingly, McPhail is analogous prior art to
18 Appellants’ invention.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013