Appeal No. 1998-0246
Application No. 08/397,536
The appellant (brief, page 4) argues that Dallaserra is non-analogous art to the
appellant's invention and has filed a declaration by Raider Schmeichel (Paper No. 32) in
support of this position. For the reasons which follow, we do not agree with the appellant in
this regard.
Two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior art is analogous: (1) whether
the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the
reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Clay,
966 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Deminski,
796 F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ 313, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036,
202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979).
We recognize that Dallaserra is directed to packaging paper mailers and not wound
dressings and fully appreciate the declarant's stated belief that one concerned with packaging
wound dressings at the time of the appellant's invention would not have turned to a patent
dealing with a process and apparatus for manufacturing continuous sealed postal or other
envelope assemblies (Schmeichel declaration, page 5). However, even if Dallaserra cannot
reasonably be considered to be from the field of the appellant's endeavor, we share the
examiner's opinion that it meets the second criterion for analogous prior art, in that it is
reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the appellant is involved. As explained on page
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007