Appeal No. 2000-0267 Page 5
Application No. 08/856,943
"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); 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 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 attention in
considering his problem . . . . If a reference disclosure has
the same purpose as the claimed invention, the reference
relates to the same problem, and that fact supports use of
that reference in an obviousness rejection." Id. at 659, 23
USPQ2d at 1061.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007