Appeal 2007-1555
Application 09/900,442
Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976) (the
involved patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same
function it had been known to perform); Dunbar v. Myers, 94 U.S. 187, 195 (1876)
(ordinary mechanics know how to use bolts, rivets and screws and it is obvious that
any one knowing how to use such devices would know how to arrange a deflecting
plate at one side of a circular saw which had such a device properly arranged on
the other side).
When multiple prior art references are used to reject a claim, then the prior
art references should be “analogous.” Prior art is “analogous” when a person
having ordinary skill in the art would consider it relevant or related to the invention
sought to be patented. Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 229 (1976) (data
processing system used in large business organization found to analogous to
inventor's data process system used in banking industry); Graham v. John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 35 (1966) (where inventor was attempting to solve mechanical
closure problem, liquid containers having pouring spouts found to be analogous to
an inventor's pump spray insecticide bottle cap); Cuno Engineering Corp. v.
Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84, 91-92 (1941) (thermostat to break circuit in
an electric heater, toaster or iron found to be analogous to a circuit breaker used in
an inventor's cordless cigar lighter); Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Mfg. Co., 177 U.S.
485, 493 (1900) (device used in mills other than windmills held to be analogous to
inventor's use of same device in windmills); In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1446, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (if art is in the field of applicant's endeavor
or is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which an inventor is
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013