Appeal No. 96-2855
Application No. 08/190,227
determine the scope and content of the prior art. Graham v.
John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). "Although §
103 does not, by its terms, define the 'art to which [the]
subject matter [sought to be patented] pertains,' this
determination is frequently couched in terms of whether the
art is analogous or not, i.e., whether the art is 'too remote
to be treated as prior art.'" In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658,
23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Sovish,
769 F.2d 738, 741, 226 USPQ 771, 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
In making this determination, we must consider two
criteria. First, it must be determined if the prior art is
from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem
addressed. Secondly, even if the prior art is not in the same
field of endeavor, it must be determined whether the reference
still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
which the inventor is involved. In re Clay, supra, 966 F.2d
at 658-659, 23 USPQ2d at 1060.
The Examiner states (Answer at page 4):
The instant invention belongs to the prior
art of clinical analytical chemistry and calibration
and accuracy are [a] mainstay of the field.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007