Appeal No. 1998-1418
Application 08/313,249
rejection of independent claim 28 on appeal. The examiner states
that appellants’ argument regarding the non-analogous art issue
is not persuasive since “Sugimoto was provided as a simple pic-
ture of the conventional punch method relied upon in rejection
[sic] this limitation” (answer, page 6). However, we find
nothing in Sugimoto which teaches or suggests a punching method.
Also, the test of whether a reference is from a non-analogous
art is first, whether it is within the field of the inventor's
endeavor, and second, if it is not, whether it is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was
involved. In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174
(CCPA 1979). We find that the shower device of Sugimoto and
an ultrasonic atomizer are clearly not in the same field of
endeavor. Sugimoto is also not concerned with solving a problem
in an ultrasonic atomizer plate for providing a stable spraying
operation which achieves a balance between the amount of liquid
pumped and the amount of liquid atomized, while also increasing
the strength without thickening the plate, as are appellants.
Although Sugimoto discloses recesses between nozzle
apertures per se, we find that there is a lack of suggestion to
use the shower head plate of Sugimoto to modify the ultrasonic
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007