Appeal No. 97-1647 Page 6
Application No. 08/321,255
“one skilled in the art faced with the problems associated
with prior art techniques of adjusting the fly height of a
slider carried by a spring loaded flexure arm would not look
to the rotary head tape head art (i.e., to the Murata et al.
reference) for a solution.” (Appeal Br. at 10.) In short,
the appellants allege that Murata is not analogous art.
We find that the reference is analogous art. Art is
analogous if a reference either is within the field of an
inventor's endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventor was involved. In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1445 (Fed.
Cir. 1992); In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23 USPQ2d 1058,
1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Furthermore, a reference is reasonably
pertinent if, because of the matter with which it deals, it
logically would have commended itself to the inventor's
attention in considering his problem. If the reference’s
disclosure has the same purpose as the claimed invention, the
reference relates to the same problem, and that fact supports
use of that reference in a rejection. An inventor may have
been motivated to consider the reference when making his
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007