Appeal No. 2001-1898
Application No. 08/835,945
addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the
field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference
still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
with which the inventor is involved.
According to appellants (brief, page 12), Stenberg and Fox do not
meet these criteria:
The Steinberg [sic] patent is in the field of tool
handles while the Fox patent is for a universal joint.
Neither reference is within the field of the
appellants' invention, i.e., that of providing a
vandal-resistant connection device which secures a
valuable object to the end of a hollow post or pipe.
Both Steinberg [sic] and Fox are non-analogous art
since they are clearly not within appellants' field of
endeavor and are not reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which appellants were involved.
We do not agree with appellants. In the first place,
claims 57 to 62 are simply drawn to a bar, which is used as part
of a connection device. Thus, the field of endeavor as far as
the rejected claims are concerned is connection devices, and the
first criterion of In re Clay is met. Moreover, Stenberg and Fox
also both meet the second criterion in that they are both
reasonably pertinent to the problem with which appellants are
involved, namely, as the examiner states on page 12 of the
answer, "coupling two axially disposed and interfitted members by
a transverse bar."
Another argument made by appellants is that neither Stenberg
nor Fox refers to snagging (brief, page 11). This may be correct
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007