Appeal No. 2001-2488
Application No. 09/368,455
different sections of the gas passage wall (Answer, paragraph
bridging pages 3-4). From these findings, the examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
this art to arrange the heat transfer fins in the burner passage
of Lesieur in a population density gradient, where the heat
transfer fins in different sections of the passage provide
different heat transfers to the wall of the passage, as taught by
Parker for the advantage of providing an assemblage with improved
thermal fatigue life and to eliminate cracking and splitting
(Answer, paragraph bridging pages 4-5). We disagree for reasons
stated below.
Appellant’s argument that must be answered before
consideration of the examiner’s obviousness analysis is that the
references are “non-analogous” (Brief, page 9). Whether a prior
art reference is “analogous” is a question of fact. See In re
Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The determination that a reference is from non-analogous art is
two-fold. First we must determine if the reference is within the
field of the inventor’s endeavor. If the reference is not within
the field of the inventor’s endeavor, we determine whether the
reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problems with
which the inventor was involved. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d
1573, 1577, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Wood,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007