Appeal No. 1997-1383
Application No. 08/217,392
Appellants argue that, "the three cited references are
not analogous art because they are not in the same field of
endeavor, nor are they in the same field of endeavor as the
present invention." (Brief-page 6). Appellants also contend
that the field of "data retrieval systems", indicated by the
Examiner, is too broad (brief-page 7). However, Appellants
never state what they consider to be their field of endeavor,
and without such, we are unable to determine if there is a
difference.
Appellants discuss the "field of information processing"
(specification, page 1, line 24), and assuming this is their
field of endeavor, we find the applied references fall within
this field also. In addition, we note that Appellants
acknowledge their invention to be an improvement over Levine
(Brief-page 3), thus we are at a loss to understand how
Appellants’ invention is in a different field of endeavor.
Since we consider the applied references and Appellants’
invention to be in the same field of endeavor, we find it
unnecessary to determined whether the references are
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007