Appeal No. 2002-1038
Application 09/122,022
the undercut or extended dimension 29 of the groove 27
and the complete filling of the groove 27 by means of
the cover material at 31 [column 2, line 64, through
column 3, line 30].
In an obviousness determination under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
art which is non-analogous is too remote to be treated as prior
art. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060
(Fed. Cir. 1992). There are two criteria for determining whether
art is analogous: (1) whether the art is from the field of the
inventor’s endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2)
if the art is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor,
whether it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
which the inventor was involved. Id.
The specification in the instant application indicates that
the field of the appellant’s endeavor is expandable batons and
handle covers therefor (see page 1), and that the particular
problem with which the appellant was involved was to prevent the
cover from slipping relative to the handle (see pages 4 and 5).
Although Zimmerman, Hemming and Beere are not within this field
of endeavor, they certainly are reasonably pertinent to this
particular problem. Thus, each constitutes analogous art which
was properly considered by the examiner in combination with
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007