Appeal No. 97-1394
Application 08/500,178
Firstly, the toothbrush is certainly not from appellant’s
field of endeavor.
Secondly, we are of the view that the problem of providing a
rotatable toothbrush handle is not reasonably pertinent to the
problem of providing a non-slip grip on a wrench. 2
Furthermore, even if it could be said that the
toothbrush handle teaching of Distiso was from an analogous
art, the teaching of Distiso is of a handle that is not
translatable on the toothbrush shaft, nor does the handle
frictionally engage the shaft of the toothbrush. Instead, the
teaching of Distiso is that the handle should be freely
rotatable on the shaft. Therefore, we are in agreement with
appellant’s argument that Distiso actually teaches away from
the examiner’s proposed combination of references.
2In resolving the question of obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, we presume full knowledge by the inventor of all the
prior art in the field of his endeavor. However, with regard
to prior art outside the field of his endeavor, we only
presume knowledge from those arts reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventor was involved. In
re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA
1979)(quoting In re Antle, 58 CCPA 1382, 1387, 444 F.2d 1168,
1171-72, 170 USPQ 285, 287-88 (1971)).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007