Appeal No. 1997-1266
Application 08/078,791
23 USPQ2d at 1060. With respect to the field of endeavor, we
agree with Appellant. Appellant’s sorting of batteries, or
even “testing” of batteries, for chemical content, is not
within the same field of endeavor as DeLanty’s testing of
tubes, or other metallic articles, for flaws. However,
DeLanty may still be analogous if it is "reasonably pertinent
to the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved." Id. See also
In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1481, 31 USPQ 2d 1671, 1675-76
(Fed. Cir. 1994).
The Examiner has not commented on whether DeLanty is
“reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor is involved”. Appellant’s problem is that metal
jackets (or tubes) interfere with the measurement of other
battery elements, i.e., internal chemical content. DeLanty
had a similar problem, the metal of the metal tubes
interfered with the measurement of other elements, i.e.,
internal defects. Thus, Appellant’s problem was the same as
DeLanty’s problem, and therefore, reasonably pertinent and
analogous.
Combinability
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007