Appeal No. 98-1201 Page 8
Application No. 08/527,784
reverse, pro forma, the examiner's rejections of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.2
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is affirmed,
the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed, and a new rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has been added pursuant to
provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
Since one rejection of claim 1 has been affirmed, the
decision of the examiner is affirmed.
2However to avoid the inefficiency of piecemeal appellate
review, we note that the appellant's argument (reply brief,
pp. 2-3) to the effect that the ISDT tank bags are non-
analogous art is well taken. 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, the ISDT tank bags are not within the field
of the inventor's endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the
problem with which the inventor was involved. Thus, the ISDT
tank bags are non-analogous art.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007