Appeal No. 1997-1117
Application No. 08/300,703
(Brief, page 6). 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 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). As pointed out by the Examiner (Answer,
pages 8 and 9), all of the applied prior art references in the
present instance are concerned with the security of enclosures
or containers and/or the opening and closing of same. In our
view, the skilled artisan would logically have consulted the
teachings of all of the prior art references considering
Appellant’s concern with inhibiting unauthorized access to
protected devices.
In view of the above discussion, it is our view that
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007