Appeal No. 2006-1479
Application No. 10/324,660
1 OPINION
2 With respect to the rejection based on Kaneda in view of Iwai and
3 McPhail, Appellants have argued all of the claims together. Therefore, in
4 accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have selected independent
5 claim 11 as the representative claim to decide the appeal of this rejection,
6 with claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, and 21 standing or falling
7 with claim 11.
8 The Examiner determines that Kaneda as modified by Iwai would
9 have suggested the subject matter of claim 11 with the exception of the
10 wafer press being activated by coupling it to a cylinder (Answer 4-5).
11 Appellants do not contest this determination. Appellants do contest the
12 Examiner’s further determination that it would have been obvious, in view
13 of McPhail, to couple the pushing member 35 of Kaneda to a cylinder to
14 actuate the pushing member 35. Specifically, Appellants allege that McPhail
15 is non-analogous art (Br. 5) and that, therefore, there can be no suggestion to
16 combine McPhail with Kaneda and Iwai (Br. 6). Appellants do not contest
17 that, if the references were combined as proposed by the Examiner, the
18 subject matter of claim 11 would result. Accordingly, the sole issue before
19 us is whether McPhail is analogous prior art to Appellants’ invention.
20 Two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior art is
21 analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless
22 of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of
23 the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013