Appeal No. 2002-2047 Page 6
Application No. 09/348,400
As is best shown in Figure 7 and explained in column 9, Heinz discloses an
apparatus for removing items of laundry from a container (51) that is mounted on a
frame (52) that is vertically and horizontally movable beneath a gripper (23). The
container is “moved to and fro” and “up and down” (column 9, lines 35-40) by the frame,
in order to allow the gripper to reach into any part of the container so that all laundry
items can be removed therefrom. Heinz further discloses a pivotable conveyor arm (30)
which carries on its distal end a roller (28) that can mate with a second roller (26) to
form a nip that closes on a laundry article that has been picked up by the gripper and
moves the article laterally and deposits it on another conveyor 33 (Figure 3).
The appellant has argued that Umeda is non-analogous art and therefore cannot
properly be combined with Robin. 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). Umeda clearly is not directed to laundry separating devices, and therefore is not
in the field of the appellant’s endeavors. Since Umeda is directed to loading boxes on a
truck, we share the appellant’s view that it would not have commended itself to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007