Appeal No. 95-3288
Application 08/148,020
endeavor, it must be determined whether the reference still is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor is involved. In re Clay, supra, 966 F.2d at 658-659,
23 USPQ2d at 1060. With respect to the field of endeavor, there
is little dispute that Charles is not within the same field of
endeavor as high pressure discharge lamps. However, Charles may
still be analogous if it is "reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventor is involved." Id.
See also In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1481, 31 USPQ 2d 1671,
1675-76 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The Examiner has showed that the prior art reference,
Aelterman, is concerned with providing a shield for a high
pressure discharge lamp that is heat resistant and electrically
insulative. Aelterman teaches that mica provides these desirable
characteristics. The Examiner also showed that the prior art
references, Davis, King or Carleton, teach that ceramic provides
these desirable characteristic and serves as a shield in lamps.
Thus, the prior art would have led those skilled in the art to
consult the ceramic arts for a suitable material to provide a
suitable shield in the high pressure discharge lamp. Thus, we
find that Charles, a teaching within the ceramic arts, is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007