Appeal No. 2002-2145
Application No. 09/113,808
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the answer and below we will
sustain this rejection.
The appellants argue that Liston is from a non-analogous art
and accordingly that the rejection is improper for this reason
alone. As the appellants appreciate, two criteria have evolved
for determining whether prior art is analogous: (1) whether the
art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem
addressed and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the
inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060
(Fed. Cir. 1992). According to the appellants, the Liston
reference is neither from the same field of endeavor nor
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
appellants are involved. We cannot agree.
For the reasons expressed in the answer, we find that Liston
is from the same field as the appellants’ endeavor. The contrary
view expressed in the brief and in the Staby and Shellie
declarations of record is not well taken for a number of reasons.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007