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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007