Appeal No. 96-1856
Application 08/193,324
is “the number of said subsequent recovery operations being
determined by a specific amount of time.” It is clear from
the application as filed and its discussion of Supino as well
as Supino itself and the examiner's position with respect to
it, that the disclosure of this reference is limited to a
fixed number of retry operations as best depicted in Figure 3.
Note the fifth attempt decision block and essentially most of
the discussion at column 3 of this reference. There is no
teaching or suggestion in this reference alone which would
have lead the artisan to take a time-based approach of the
type set forth in claim 1 on appeal.
On the other hand, we agree with appellants' view that
Obrea is nonanalogous art as expressed at pages 6 and 7 of the
brief on appeal. Since the examiner's position at pages 4 and
5 of the answer impliedly agree with appellants' view that
Obrea is not in appellants' field of invention, in accordance
with the noted precedent by both the examiner and appellants,
we must then look to arts which are “reasonably pertinent” to
the particular problem with which the inventor was involved.
As even the title of Obrea reveals, not only is Obrea
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007