Appeal No. 1997-2474 Page 8
Application No. 08/125,590
First, they argue that McMillan is non-analogous art. (Appeal
Br. at 6-9.) The examiner replies, “appellant's argument ...
appears to be contradicted to [sic] what the appellant claims
in the present invention, in which both DCT and IDCT have
almost the same and/or similar limitations.” (Examiner’s
Answer at 8.) We agree with the examiner.
Art is analogous if a reference either is within the
field of an inventor's endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to
the particular problem with which the inventor was involved.
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1445 (Fed.
Cir. 1992); In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23 USPQ2d 1058,
1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Here, the appellants state that their invention “relates
generally to the field of digital image processing systems
....” (Spec. at 2.) McMillan, in turn, “relates to the field
of digital image processing systems ....” Col. 1, ll. 10-11.
The appellants admit “that both McMillan, Jr. et al. and the
present invention are directed to image processing systems,”
(Appeal Br. at 5), and “both McMillan, Jr. et al. and the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007