Appeal No. 1996-4124
Application No. 08/307,088
23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992) citing In re Sovish, 769
F.2d 738, 741, 226 USPQ 771, 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In making this determination, it must first be determined
if the prior art is from the same field of endeavor,
regardless of the problem addressed. If the prior art is not
in the same field of endeavor, it must then be determined if
the prior art is particularly pertinent to the particular
problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Clay,
supra, 966 F.2d at 658-659, 23 USPQ2d at 1060.
We find that the field of endeavor for claim 28 is that
of a grinding machine which grinds flanks in the teeth of
tooth wheels. We find both Hahn and Loehrke to be analogous
prior art as they are in the same field of endeavor as
Appellant’s
claim 28.
Hahn teaches controlling a grinding machine such that the
feed of the grinding machine is adjusted based upon measured
grinding force. See column 7, lines 46 through 65. Further,
Hahn states that the multipurpose grinding machine of figure
15 can be used to produce "sector-shaped parts." See column
14, lines 14 through 17. We find that Hahn’s teaching of
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007