Appeal No. 1999-0706 Page 5
Application No. 1999-0706
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). In this case, we are informed by appellants' specification
(page 1, first paragraph) that appellants' invention "relates generally to tongue cleaners, i.e.,
articles which are used to scrape the upper surface of a person's tongue." As disclosed in
column 1, line 2, Robinson is directed to "curette devices generally." Accordingly, we find
that Robinson is within appellants' field of endeavor, i.e., scraping devices for scraping tissue
from within body cavities, and thus falls within the first category of analogous art. Moreover,
appellants' specification (page 1, lines 21-29) further informs us that appellants' invention
addresses the problem of reaching the posterior portion of the tongue without the need for the
uncomfortable tilting of the shank up to the roof of the mouth. Similarly, Robinson is directed
to facilitating engagement of a tissue scraper with the tissue to be scraped without the need for
uncomfortable lateral manipulation of the stem portion. For that reason alone, even if
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007