Appeal No. 1999-1486
Application No. 08/670,806
In our opinion, appellants have an overly narrow
perspective of the second prong of the two-part test for
determining whether a reference document is analogous or non-
analogous prior art. More specifically, appellants argue in
the revised brief (page 9) that they have addressed and solved
the problem of providing a simplified, easily adjustable
locking arrangement for a motor vehicle hood, while Poe is
directed to the problem of adjusting the tension of an
externally adjustable latch assembly for receiving flush
mounted hinged or removable panels on aircraft. We, however,
perceive from the background section of the present
application (pages 1 and 2) that, at the time of the present
invention, it was known to adjust the height of a locking top
part relative to an engine hood, and that appellants sought to
overcome problems with a known adjuster (several adjusting
plates). Thus, as we see it, the problem faced by appellants
was to find a simpler, alternative adjuster configuration that
did not have a problem (high time expenditure) attendant to
the known adjuster. With the above in mind, it is apparent2
2In the specification (page 2), appellants specify that
an object of the invention is
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007