Appeal No. 2006-1479
Application No. 10/324,660
1 The motivation to combine particular references may come “from the
2 nature of the problem to be solved, leading inventors to look to the
3 references relating to possible solutions to that problem.” Pro-Mold & Tool
4 Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626,
5 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996); see also In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139 n.5, 40
6 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
7 Kaneda discloses that, when a protruding or “flash” wafer is detected,
8 pushing member 35 is moved to push the wafer back into the cassette
9 (Translation [MEANS] 4). Kaneda does not specify, however, the type of
10 actuator used to move pushing member 35 in the pushing direction, leaving
11 one skilled in the art to select a known linear actuator to provide such
12 pushing motion. As evidenced by McPhail, cylinders, or pneumatic
13 expansible-chamber actuators, were well known linear actuators in the prior
14 art at the time of Appellants’ invention. Accordingly, it would have been
15 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to couple a cylinder, a known
16 linear actuator, to the pushing member 35 of Kaneda to move the pushing
17 member to push a protruding wafer into the cassette.
18 In light of the above, we conclude that Appellants have not
19 demonstrated that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11 as being
20 unpatentable over Kaneda in view of Iwai and McPhail. We thus sustain the
21 rejection of claim 11 and claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, and 21
22 standing or falling with claim 11.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013