Appeal No. 97-3194 Page 23
Application No. 08/442,816
forth in Lipschutz to protect the locking notches from dirt
and debris. We agree.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 25-26) that Lipschutz is
non-analogous art. We do not agree. The test for non-
analogous art is first whether the art is within the field of
the inventor's endeavor and, if not, whether it is reasonably
pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was involved.
In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA
1979). In the present instance, we are informed by the
appellant's originally filed specification that the invention
is particularly directed to a security device, more
particularly a theft prevention device for use on bicycles,
motorcycles, mopeds and other conveyance means (specification,
page 1, lines 1-3). Lipschutz discloses an antitheft device
for both two-wheeled and four-wheeled vehicles and thus falls
at least into the former category of the Wood test. Thus, we
conclude that Lipschutz is analogous art.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 23-25) that there is no
suggestion or motivation to modify Damon by the teachings of
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007