Appeal No. 1997-1266
Application 08/078,791
and the device of DeLanty all use an alternating magnetic
field to test an object.” (Answer-page 3.)
In determining whether a claim would have been obvious at
the time of the invention, the Examiner must first determine
the scope and content of the prior art. Graham v. John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). "Although §
103 does not, by its terms, define the 'art to which [the]
subject matter [sought to be patented] pertains,' this
determination is frequently couched in terms of whether the
art is analogous or not, i.e., whether the art is 'too remote
to be treated as prior art.'" In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658,
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, we must consider two
criteria. First, it must be determined if the prior art is
from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem
addressed. Secondly, even if the prior art is not in the same
field of endeavor, it must be determined whether the reference
still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
which the inventor is involved. In re Clay, supra, 966 F.2d
at 658-659,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007