Appeal No. 2001-0099
Application No. 09/042,431
assertion. The examiner contends that it would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form the
retaining slot of Mesenhöller such that it is inclined with
respect to the engagement slot by less than 90 degrees to lock
the connection as taught by Henson or Parker.
Appellants argue that neither Henson nor Parker is
analogous prior art with respect to appellants' invention.
For the reasons which follow, we do not agree.
The test for non-analogous art is first whether the art
is within the field of the inventor's endeavor and, if not,
whether it is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which
the inventor was involved. 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 logically would have commended itself to an
inventor's attention in considering his problem because of the
matter with which it deals. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659, 23
USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In this instance, appellants' invention addresses the
problem of providing an improved locking arrangement between
two telescoping members by providing engagement and retaining
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007