Appeal No. 2000-0946 Page 9
Application No. 08/704,217
Finally, notwithstanding appellant’s argument that Oishi is not analogous art with
respect to appellant’s invention, appellant has not offered any explanation in support of
this contention. 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). See also 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). We are informed by the present specification (page 1, line 14) that
appellant’s invention “relates generally to power control systems.” Likewise, the Oishi
patent relates to a power control system for controlling the power applied to a heating
element of a defrosting apparatus. We therefore consider Oishi and appellant’s
invention to be from the same field of endeavor. Moreover, even if Oishi were not
considered to be from the same field of endeavor as appellant’s invention, Oishi is
generally concerned with the same problem addressed by appellant, namely,
monitoring the temperature response of a resistive heating element to ensure that only
the necessary power is applied to the resistive heating element, and thus still is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which appellant is involved.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007