Appeal No. 2000-0053 Application 08/829,863 appellants. Thus, as with the processes of Sydansk and Clay, the process of Sydansk is not reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the appellants. Because of the similarity of the distinction between the fields of endeavor and problems addressed by Sydansk and Clay, and those of Sydansk and the appellants, and because Clay is binding precedent for the board, we hold that the process of Sydansk is nonanalogous art with respect to the appellants’ claimed process. Also, because Smith’s field of endeavor and problem addressed are the same as those of Sydansk, we likewise hold that the process of Smith is nonanalogous art with respect to the appellants’ claimed process. The examiner appears to argue that Sydansk is analogous art because Clay is analogous art and Sydansk uses basically the same gelation solution as Clay (answer, pages 5-6). This similarity alone is not sufficient put Sydansk’s process in the appellants’ field of endeavor or to render Sydansk reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the appellants. For the above reasons we find that the examiner has not set forth a factual basis which is sufficient for establishing 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007