Appeal No. 1999-0880
Application No. 08/700,610
Therefore, we find it difficult to discern any reason for the
artisan skilled in the RF remote control garage door opener
art to have looked to Early for any guidance on improving or
modifying remote control garage door openers taught by Tsubaki
and only tangentially suggested by the Pinnow references
(e.g., column 9, lines 55-61) which are primarily concerned
with a universal electronic locking system contained in a
wristwatch and employing a photo-optical system for
controlling a locking mechanism.
A two-prong test has evolved in determining whether prior
art is analogous. First, we ask whether the prior art is from
the same field of endeavor as applicants’ invention,
regardless of the problem addressed. Then, if a reference is
not within the same field of endeavor, we ask whether the
reference is still reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem with which the applicants are involved. In re Wood,
599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979).
Quite clearly, Early is not directed, in any manner, to
the same field of endeavor, viz., garage door openers, as the
instant invention. Thus, we must determine whether Early
might still be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007