Appeal No. 2000-0820 Page 4
Application No. 08/978,625
[applied] prior art” (brief, page 6). Two criteria have
evolved for determining whether prior art is analogous: (1)
whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless
of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not
within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the
reference still is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re
Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir.
1992). See also In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ
313, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036,
202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979). With respect to the first
criteria, all of the references used in the rejection under 35
U.S.C. 103 are from the wrench art, i.e., a ratchet wrench
with extender and socket (White), a socket (Quinn), a driver
(Coviello) and an extender (DeVrou). Thus, we agree with the
examiner that all of the prior art used in the rejection are
from the same field of endeavor as involved in the present
application and are properly useable together. Moreover, even
if the references were not considered to be from the same
field of endeavor, all of the references are directed to
utilizing a non-slip gripping surface on wrench tools, which
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007