Appeal No. 2002-0487
Application No. 09/377,371
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. Id.
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.
Thus, the purposes of both the invention and the prior
art are important in determining whether the reference
is reasonably pertinent to the problem the invention
attempts to solve. 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. An
inventor may well have been motivated to consider the
reference when making his invention. If it is directed
to a different purpose, the inventor would accordingly
have had less motivation or occasion to consider it.
Clay, 966 F.2d at 659, 23 USPQ2d at 1061.
We acknowledge that Dickerson's field of endeavor is
attaching a motor vehicle to a truck bed for transport, while
appellants' field of endeavor is fastening devices temporarily to
a vehicles tires. However, we are of the view that Dickerson,
which uses a vehicle's tires to fasten the vehicle temporarily to
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007