Appeal No. 2004-2014
Application 09/874,672
their entirety. As such, we concur with the examiner that it
would have been obvious to make the known checker board cookie
dough in the form of a frozen rectangular block as suggested by
Pampas alone, or Pampas and Moline, motivated by a reasonable
expectation of obtaining the advantage stated in Pampas.
The appellants contend that Moline and Weber are
nonanalogous art. See the Brief, pages 9-10.
The test of whether a prior art reference is from an
analogous art is first, whether it is within the field of the
inventor’s endeavor, and second, if it is not, whether it is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor was involved. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59,
23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032,
1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979). “A [prior art] reference is
reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different
field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which,
because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have
commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his
[or her] problem.” Clay, 966 F.2d at 659, 23 USPQ2d at 1061.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007