Appeal No. 1997-2075 Page 6
Application No. 08/362,362
The appellant has contested (brief, pp. 8-15) the above-
noted obviousness determination made by the examiner.
However, we find the appellant's arguments to be unpersuasive
for the following reasons.
First, the appellant argues (brief, pp. 13-15) that Duley
is non-analogous art. We do not agree. The test for non-
analogous art is first whether the art is within the field of
the inventor's endeavor and, if not, whether it is reasonably
pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was involved.
In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA
1979). A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it
may be in a different field of endeavor, it logically would
have commended itself to an inventor's attention in
considering his problem because of the matter with which it
deals. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1061
(Fed. Cir. 1992). In the present instance, we are informed by
the appellant's originally filed specification that the
invention is particularly directed to laser shock peening of
continuously moving parts with a laser. As set forth above,
Duley teaches that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007