Appeal No. 1999-1042 Page 7
Application No. 08/781,220
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). Kroon clearly is not within the field of the
appellant’s endeavor in that it is directed to a cluster office
work station system and not to the supply of medical gas
services or the like. As for the second facet of the Wood
test, while Kroon illustrates an arrangement of work stations
that surround a five-sided central column, it has nothing to do
with providing a stand-alone column which does not impede the
movement of workers around it while maximizing the supply of
utilities that can be provided therethrough, and thus in our
view would not logically have commended itself to the attention
of an inventor working on the problem to which the appellant’s
invention is directed. Therefore, Kroon is non-analogous art
and the first two rejections are fatally defective at the
outset.
Moreover, even considering, arguendo, the Kroon reference
to be analogous art, the mere fact that it discloses a five-
sided column through which utilities are supplied would not, in
our view, have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007