Appeal No. 1998-0126
Application 08/272,700
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, 23 USPQ2d at 1060. With respect to the
field of endeavor, there is little dispute that Woell is not
within the same field of endeavor as a corona discharge device
used in an electrophotographic image forming apparatus.
However, Woell 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 shown that the prior art reference,
Compton, uses stainless steel in a corona discharge device.
Since Compton does not recite the constituents of stainless
steel, we find that Woell is reasonably pertinent to
-14-14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007