Appeal No. 97-3289
Application 08/550,895
reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge
which was within the
level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was
made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the
applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See
In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA
1971). We believe that to be the case here, as we have
explained above.
The appellants also have argued that Brock is not
analogous art because “construction blankets are not related
and not analogous to the use of air beds in foam support
frames” (Brief, page 8). However, the test for analogous art,
which the appellants have not directly addressed, 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. See In re Wood, 599
F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979). A reference
is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007