Appeal No. 1999-1987 Page 18
Application No. 08/400,129
Claim 4 reads as follows: "The apparatus of Claim 3,
wherein said ball is hollow."
In applying the above-noted test for obviousness, we
additionally conclude that it would have been further obvious
at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
skill in the art to have modified the ball in Alexander's
device to be hollow as suggested and taught by Hutt to provide
improved anchoring of the ball to the line.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 19-21) that (1) Hutt is
non-analogous art, and (2) there is no suggestion to combine
the ball of Hutt with the apparatus of Alexander. 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
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007