Appeal No. 2001-0651
Application 08/134,187
references in order to build from hindsight the steps set out in
appellants’ claims. We do not agree with appellants’ position.
In considering the question of non-analogous prior art for
resolution of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the law presumes
full knowledge by the hypothetical worker having ordinary skill
in the art of all the prior art in the inventor's field of
endeavor. With regard to prior art outside the inventor's field
of endeavor, knowledge is presumed only as to those arts
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor was involved. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23
USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992), In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032,
1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979) and In re Antle, 444 F.2d
1168, 170 USPQ 285 (CCPA 1971). Thus, the determination that a
reference is from a non-analogous 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, while we would agree with appellants
that the Bradshaw reference is not within appellants’ field of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007