Page 8
Appeal No. 1998-1373
Application No. 08/377,473
We have, of course, carefully considered all of the arguments raised by the
appellants. However, they have not convinced us that the decision of the examiner was in
error. Our position with respect to the arguments should be apparent from the rationale we
have set forth above in sustaining the rejections. In addition, with regard to the assertion
that Clark is nonanalogous art, we point out that the test for analogous art is first whether
the art is within the field of the inventor's endeavor and, if not, whether it is reasonably
pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was involved. See In re Wood, 599 F.2d
1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979). A reference is reasonably pertinent if,
even though it may be in a different field of endeavor, it logically would have commended
itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem because of the matter with which
it deals. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Even if it were considered that Clark is not in the field of the appellants’ endeavors, it is our
opinion that it is reasonably pertinent to the problem because it filters air to trap particulate
matter (column 5, line 47 to column 6, line 6), and therefore would have commended itself
to the attention of one working in this field. In addition, with regard to Clark, we do not
agree that the only teaching one of ordinary skill in the art would have taken from this
reference is that all of the filters must be used; from our perspective, the examiner is
correct in his opinion that Clark teaches using multiple filters in series, which would have
motivated the artisan to add a second filter to the Heyl system.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007