Appeal No. 2006-1149
Application No. 10/296,406
Zinn does not render claims 10 to 17, 19, and 20 unpatentable [supplemental brief, pages 6
and 7].
Whether a reference in the prior art is "analogous" is a question of fact. In re Clay, 23
USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg., 810 F.2d 1561, 1568
n.9, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 n.9 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1052 (1987). The Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit has set forth two criteria 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 Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2006) citing
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Clay, supra, at 1060,
citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ 313, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood,
599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979).
We find that both the Muzslay and Zinn references pertain to the same field of
endeavor. Muzslay teaches an electrical adapter for a fuel injector. Zinn teaches a current
distribution arrangement especially for motor vehicles. Both references clearly pertain to the
field of automotive electrical art, and particularly to electrical connections and associated
connectors in motor vehicles, as pointed out by the examiner [answer, page 6]. We find that
the Zinn reference is also reasonably pertinent to the particular problem to be solved, i.e., the
problem of sealing an electrical connection from exposure to environmental elements
typically associated with a motor vehicle. The oval lip ring seal 64 taught by Zinn clearly
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007