Appeal No. 96-0377
Application 07/979,254
processing apparatus for simultaneously processing a plurality
of work pieces at a time.
In determining whether a claim would have been
obvious at the time of the invention, the Examiner must first
determine the scope and content of the prior art. Graham v.
John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). "Although §
103 does not, by its terms, define the 'art to which [the]
subject matter [sought to be patented] pertains,' this deter-
mination is frequently couched in terms of whether the art is
analogous or not, i.e., whether the art is 'too remote to be
treated as prior
art.'" In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060
(Fed. Cir. 1992) citing In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 741, 226
USPQ 771, 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In making this determination, we must consider two
criteria. First, it must be determined if the prior art is
from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem
addressed. Secondly, even if the prior art is not in the same
field of endeavor, it must be determined whether the reference
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007