Appeal No. 1999-2783
Application No. 08/654,034
Thus, the determination that a reference is from a
nonanalogous art is twofold. First, it must be decided if the
reference is from within the inventor's field of endeavor. If
it is not, then it must be determined whether the reference is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor was concerned. In the present case, like appellant,
we are of the view that the archery bow mounted hunting blind
of the Hill patent is non-analogous prior art because it is
not within appellant's field of endeavor and is not reasonably
pertinent to appellant's particular problem of providing a
floating artificial fish attracting habitat (i.e., a floating
artificial weed line).
The examiner's position (answer, page 10) that Hill is
analogous prior art because it is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the applicant was concerned
"because Hill discloses a concept of a plastic material made
from a vinyl sheet," evidences an apparent lack of
understanding on the examiner's part as to the particular
problem confronted by appellant and provides no basis
whatsoever for concluding why a reference that addresses a
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007