Appeal No. 97-3030
Application No. 08/254,181
that a heating resistance or some source of heat should be
used adjacent a fragrance bar and those skilled in that art
would have been expected to be familiar with such elements.
Those seeking to modify the heating element of Pons Pons would
be expected to look to the heating arts. Although Yamamoto is
not directed to electrically heated air fresheners, it is
directed, somewhat, to heating elements in its use of a
porcelain enamel metal substrate. So while Yamamoto does not
appear to be within appellants’ field of endeavor, i.e.,
heated air fresheners, it is, in our view, reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which appellants were
concerned, i.e., heating.
Having said that, although we have determined that
Yamamoto does constitute analogous art, we hold that the
instant claimed subject matter would not have been obvious,
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103, based on any
combination of Pons Pons, Yamamoto, Napierski, Hawkins, Hung
and Maury. Only Yamamoto is alleged to provide the teaching
of the claim limitation, "a porcelain enamel metal substrate."
While Yamamoto does, indeed, disclose such, the porcelain
enamel metal substrate disclosed therein is not used as a heat
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007