Appeal No. 2002-1569 Page 6
Application No. 09/356,431
caliper disc brake of the type found in vehicles be utilized in the exercise system to
provide a fixed resistance means as an adjunct to, or as a substitute for, the wet disc
variable resistance device (columns 30, lines 15-41).
With regard to the appellant’s argument that Daniels is non-analogous art, we
note that the test for analogous art is first whether the art is within the field of the
inventor's endeavor and, if not, whether it is reasonably pertinent to the problem with
which the inventor was involved. See 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 of endeavor, it logically would have commended itself to an inventor's
attention in considering his problem because of the matter with which it deals. See In
re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Daniels, which
discloses an exercise device, clearly is not within the field of vehicle brakes, which is
the subject to which the appellant’s invention is directed. Nor, in our view, would
Daniels logically have commended itself to the attention of an inventor seeking to solve
problems present in wet disc brakes for vehicles, for it deals with the problem of
providing resistance to the force exerted by a human being in attempting to initiate
rotation of a member at rest, which is far removed from the problem of overcoming the
force present in a rotating wheel of a vehicle to bring it to rest.
Moreover, even considering, arguendo, Daniels to be analogous art, the mere
fact that the prior art structure could be modified does not make such a modification
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007