Appeal No. 2000-0450
Application No. 09/047,048
readable on Matthysse.
Rejection (2)
As to this rejection, appellants argue, inter alia, that
Matthysse constitutes nonanalogous art. We agree with this
argument, and therefore will not sustain rejection (2).2
Under the two-part test for analogous art enunciated in
In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir.
1992), prior art is analogous (1) if it is from the
applicant's field of endeavor, or (2) if not, if it "still is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
[applicant] is involved." The Matthysse patent does not meet
either prong of
this test. First, it clearly is not from appellants' field of
endeavor. Second, appellants are concerned with the problem
of adjusting the height of a vertically oriented animal
watering pipe, while Matthysse is concerned with clamping an
insulator to a high voltage bus line, a problem which we do
2We note that, as pointed out by the examiner in the
final rejection (page 6), the question of nonanalogous art is
relevant to the issue of obviousness, but not to anticipation.
In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007