Appeal No. 2001-0557 Page 7
Application 09/376,548
738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Thus, from our perspective, the teachings of the applied references establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter of independent claim 17,
and we therefore will sustain the rejection of this claim. We also will sustain the rejection of
dependent claim 18, the patentability of which was not separately argued before the
Board.
The appellants’ argument that the rejection was improper because Cavan is not
analogous art we find not to be persuasive. The test for 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. See 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.
See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992). It is our view
that the Cavan reference would have commended itself to the attention of one of ordinary
skill in the art of packaging who wished to solve the problem of determining what was
inside a package and what its appearance was without opening the package.
(2)
Claims 3 and 4, which depend from claim 1, stand rejected on the basis of the
references applied against claim 1 considered further with Schlaupitz, which was cited for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007