Appeal No. 98-0009
Application No. 08/538,414
Our position with respect to the various arguments should be
apparent. LaBounty is not from nonanalogous art because, in
our view, it is related to cutting with power operated
oppositely pivoting elements, one of which moves between a
spaced pair of the others in scissor-like motion, and
therefore logically would have commended itself to the
inventor’s attention. The rejection we have sustained is not2
based upon hindsight reasoning, in that all of the structure
recited in claim 4 is found in LaBounty, as we have pointed
out.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1-6 as being unpatentable over
Hoffman in view of LaBounty is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 1-3 as being unpatentable over
2The test for 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. See In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 202
USPQ 171 (CCPA 1979). A reference is reasonably pertinent if,
even though it may be in a different field of endeavor, it
logically would have commended itself to an inventor's
attention in considering his problem because of the matter
with which it deals. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659, 23
USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007