Appeal No. 2002-0706
Application No. 09/194,773
The test of whether a prior art reference is from an
analogous art is first, whether it is within the field of the
inventor’s endeavor, and second, if it is not, whether it is
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). “A [prior art] reference is
reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different
field of endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with
which it deals, logically would have commanded itself to an
inventor’s attention in considering his [or her] problem.”
In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 659, 23 USPQ2d at 1061. Whether a prior
art reference is from an analogous art is a question of fact.
In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed.
Cir. 1994).
In the present case, we see no reason to disturb the
examiner’s finding that the Nenadic reference is from an
analogous art. The Nenadic reference, like the claimed invention
and Kurishita, is directed toward the problem associated with
blunting or chamfering the edges of a ceramic substrate as
indicated supra. Although the Nenadic reference does not
specifically mention chamfering a ceramic oxygen sensor, its
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007