Appeal No. 96-0920
Application 08/186,343
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Elfline in view of
Bossler as applied to claim 2 and further in view of Marcantonio.
OPINION
Appellants submit that claim 8 now on appeal does not stand or fall together with the
other claims. Brief, page 6. Appellants however, have not argued the separate patentability of the
balance of the claims. Accordingly, we will treat the balance of the claims as standing or falling together.
We select claim 2 as representative of appellants’ claimed subject matter and limit our consideration to
claims 2 and 8. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5)(1994).
We have carefully considered appellants' arguments for patentability. However, we are
essentially in complete agreement with the examiner that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable in
view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejections for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
The dispositive issue before us is whether the reference to Bossler constitutes analogous
art and is combinable with Elfline. There is a two step analysis to determine if a reference is
analogous art. See In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979). “First
we decide if the reference is within the field of the inventor’s endeavor. If it is not, we determine whether
the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.”
Appellants argue that Bossler does not pertain to appellants' field of endeavor. See Brief, page 7. In this
respect we concur. However, our analysis of the second step differs from and disagrees with appellants.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007