Ex parte REINER et al. - Page 8

                                                                                                       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