Appeal No. 1998-0126
Application 08/272,700
amounts of nickel and chromium. Appellants argue “As
described above, the patent to Woell has nothing whatsoever to
do with Appellants’ invention, as it is directed to [the]
catalytic processing field, and the Examiner’s application of
that reference is an impermissible aggregation of unrelated
references in diverse, unrelated fields.” (Brief-page 12.)
We interpret this as a non analogous are argument.
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
-13-13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007