Ex Parte Lechtenboehmer et al - Page 11



               Appeal 2007-3258                                                                             
               Application 10/916,195                                                                       
           1   break circuit in an electric heater, toaster or iron found to be analogous to a              
           2   circuit breaker used in an inventor's cordless cigar lighter); Mast, Foos &                  
           3   Co. v. Stover Mfg. Co., 177 U.S. 485, 493 (1900) (device used in mills other                 
           4   than windmills held to be analogous to inventor's use of same device in                      
           5   windmills); In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1446, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1445                         
           6   (Fed. Cir. 1992) (if art is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with              
           7   which an inventor is concerned, then the art is "analogous").                                
           8                                                                                                
           9          F.  Discussion                                                                        
          10          We have little difficulty finding Goodyear and Cahill were addressing                 
          11   a similar problem—scavenging detrimental oxygen in multi-layer articles.                     
          12          Generally speaking, it may be true that bottles and tires may not be                  
          13   made commercially by the same commercial entity.  KSR states that when a                     
          14   work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives can prompt                     
          15   variations of it, either in the same field or a different field.  127 S. Ct. at              
          16   1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1389.  See also (1) In re Icon Health and Fitness, Inc.,                  
          17   No. 2006-1573, slip op. at 7 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2007) ("familiar items may                   
          18   have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes") and (2) In re Sullivan,                    
          19   No. 2006-1507, slip op. at 9-10 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2007) (since Sullivan                    
          20   teaches whole antibodies for use against rattlesnake venom and Coulter                       
          21   teaches using Fab fragments to detect venom of a different snake it would                    
          22   not have been unreasonable for one skilled in the art of snake venom to                      
          23   consider that a Fab fragment of a whole antibody that neutralizes one type of                
          24   venom might be used to neutralize the venom of another species).                             



                                                    11                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013