Appeal No. 1998-1393 Page 7
Application No. 08/498,306
arguments regarding the obviousness of claims 4 and 11. We
address these seriatim.
First, the appellant argues, “one skilled in the art
would not look to Fujioka to achieve the automatic screening
operation in a cordless telephone handset unit as applicants
[sic] have disclosed and claimed.” (Appeal Br. at 4.) The
examiner replies, “Fujioka teaches that it is known in the
telephony art (including wireless telephony) to provide voice
notification when a particular caller id matches a list stored
in memory at the telephone.” (Examiner’s Answer at 8.) We
agree with the examiner.
The appellant errs in determining the scope of the prior
art. A reference is analogous art if it is within the field
of an inventor's endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventor was involved. In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1445 (Fed.
Cir. 1992); In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23 USPQ2d 1058,
1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Furthermore, a reference is reasonably
pertinent if, because of the matter with which it deals, it
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007