Appeal No. 1998-2642
Application No. 08/697,339
1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Determination that a reference is from non-analogous art
is two-fold. First, we must determine if the reference is
within the field of appellants’ endeavor. If it is not, then
we must determine whether the reference is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problems with which the inventor
was involved. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1577-78, 35
USPQ2d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Clay, supra; and In
re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979).
Here we agree with the examiner that Burgess is within the
field of appellants’ endeavor, since Burgess and appellants’
invention are directed to applying coating material to a
product as it proceeds on the treads and risers of a conveyor.
Contrary to appellants’ arguments, we determine no reason why
the size of the product to be coated would remove Burgess from
appellants’ field of endeavor (Brief, page 9; Reply Brief,
page 4). Accordingly, we determine that Burgess is analogous
art. However, we do not
agree with the examiner’s underlying factual basis in the
obviousness analysis. Staniforth is directed to the dry
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007