Appeal No. 1999-1486
Application No. 08/670,806
Prior art relevant to an obviousness determination
encompasses not only the field of an inventor's endeavor but
also any analogous arts. See Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG
v. Hantscho Commercial Products Inc., 21 F.3d 1068, 1071, 30
USPQ2d 1377, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The test of whether a
reference is from a nonanalogous 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. 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 is one which because of the
matter with which it deals, logically would have commended
itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem.
See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659,
23 USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Appellants argue that the Poe reference is non-analogous
prior art (revised brief, pages 7 through 10). We disagree.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007