Appeal No. 1998-0507
Application No. 08/457,701
concede the applicability of Sato by their lack of argument against the examiner’s
application of Sato to the instant claims. In fact, appellants’ sole argument is the
nonanalogous nature of Kitajewski.
The examiner properly states the existing law when he states that a proper
reference must either be in the field of an applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then the reference
must be at least reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was
concerned. The examiner is also correct when he states that in order for a reference to be
“reasonably pertinent,” even though it may be from a different field or art from that with
which the inventor is concerned, the reference logically would have commended itself to an
inventor’s attention in considering the problem with which the inventor was concerned.
In our view, while the examiner properly states the law, he improperly applies it.
Clearly, both Sato and appellants are directed to motors and the operation thereof.
Kitajewski, on the other hand, is interested in a ring trip detector whereby a Hall element is
used for detecting when a called subscriber goes off-hook. Thus, Kitajewski is directed to
the telephony arts and is not interested in motor control or structure. Clearly then,
Kitajewski is not in the same field of endeavor as appellants’ invention.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007