Appeal No. 95-4589
Application 08/042,888
relied on to distinguish structure from the prior art. See In
re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1403, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA
1974), In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959, 177 USPQ 705, 706
(CCPA 1973), In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580, 152 USPQ 235, 238
(CCPA 1967) and Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal, Ltd., 781 F.2d
861, 868, 228 USPQ 90, 94 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Note also
LaBounty Manufacturing v. International Trade Commission, 958
F.2d 1066, 1075, 22 USPQ2d 1025, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In
this regard, we observe that the light of McComb, by its very
nature, can be considered to provide a safety function
inasmuch as it would provide at least some illumination for a
surrounding area or, at the very least, provide a location
“marker” for whatever object it rested on (or was attached
to), thus providing a warning of the presence of that object.
The appellant has also made the broad allegation that the
examiner has combined references (e.g., Swanson) from non-
analogous arts. In our view, the appellant has an overly
narrow view of what constitutes analogous art. It is well
settled that the prior art relevant to an obviousness
determination encompasses not only the field of the inventor's
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007