Appeal No. 1999-0478 Page 6
Application No. 08/534,106
Edwards, however, is analogous art. "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)(citing
In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ 313, 315 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) and In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171,
174 (CCPA 1979)). Determining whether a reference is from the
same field of endeavor “depends upon the necessary essential
function or utility of the subject matter covered by the
claims, and not upon what it is called. For example, a tea
mixer and a concrete mixer are for the same art, namely the
mixing art, this being the necessary function of each.”
M.P.E.P. § 904.01(c)(6th ed., rev. 3, July 1997). Also,
"a reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be
in a different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it
is one which, because of the matter with which it deals,
logically would have commended itself to an inventor's
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007