Appeal No. 1999-2094 Page 13
Application No. 08/517,198
one engagement member as recited in claim 14 (see Mottino's
straps 20 and 21).
Lastly, the appellant argues that Vanzant and Will are
non-analogous art. 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 (p. 2) that the invention has for its object a
carrier being designed in such a manner as to obviate the
shortcomings inherent in the prior art and permit a simple and
convenient loading and unloading. In our view, both Vanzant
and Will teach that their resilient means (i.e., gas cylinder
52 of Vanzant and springs 32 of Will) permit a simple and
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007