Appeal No. 2006-0500
Application No. 10/094,709
the composite layer is crosslinked at a high speed of
manufacture while still maintaining good dimensional
accuracy.
Again, for reasons more fully explained in the answer, we
consider this obviousness conclusion to be well taken.
The appellants’ initial argument against this rejection is
that “[t]he Nakasone et al. patent is completely inapposite to
this field, since it relates to a method for continuous molding
of a rod-like product, e.g., a multi-core optical fiber” and that
“one skilled in the art to which the present invention is
directed, would not have look[ed] to Nakasone et al. to modify
what is known in the prior art” (brief, page 9). Though not
expressly stated, the appellants seem to regard Nakasone as
nonanalogous prior art. With this in mind, we observe that two
criteria have evolved for determining whether prior art is
analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor
regardless of the problem 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. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656,
659, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to this criteria, we cannot agree with the
appellants that the Nakasone patent “is complete inapposite to
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007