Appeal No. 2001-1766
Application 08/891,884
Appellant argues (brief, page 7) that “Nakata is not
even in an art that is ‘analogous’ to the art in which the
devices of appellant and Clark et al. fall,” that “there is no
teaching in Nakata that there is or could be a problem in the
device of Clark et al. with respect to the use of a heat staked
check valve therein . . . ,” and that a prima facie case of
obviousness has not been presented because of the use of
hindsight. Appellant also argues (reply brief, page 2) that
Nakata lacks a teaching that the use of its disk check valve in
lieu of the heat-staked check valve in Clark would have reduced
the cost of the Clark device.
With the exception of the non-analogous art argument,
we agree with the appellant’s arguments. Although Nakata may not
be in the same field of endeavor as Clark, he certainly is
concerned with the same problem addressed by both the disclosed
and claimed invention and Clark, namely, the one-way flow of a
liquid in a liquid containment and dispensing device. In re
Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir.
1992). Notwithstanding the fact that Nakata is analogous art to
Clark, the applied references neither teach nor would they have
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007