Appeal No. 2003-0092
Application No. 09/432,525
collective teachings of Yeakle and Kemmerer, we concur with the
examiner that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify the lift table of Yeakle by placing
the sensor mechanism on the base (12) rather than the table. In
our view, it would have been an obvious alternative for one of
ordinary skill in the art.
Appellant first contends that Yeakle and Kemmerer are not
combinable because Kemmerer, directed to a power-operated lift
recliner, is non-analogous to the lift table of Yeakle. However,
it is well settled that the determination of analogous art
requires a two-part test, (1) the reference must be within
applicant's field of endeavor and, if not, (2) the reference must
be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem addressed by
the applicant. In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171,
174 (CCPA 1979). In the present case, inasmuch as both Yeakle
and Kemmerer are directed to powered, vertically movable
apparatus with safeguards for interrupting the vertical movement,
we find that Kemmerer is reasonably pertinent to the particular
safety problem addressed by appellant. In our view, one of
ordinary skill in the art, looking to improve upon the safety
features of Yeakle's lift table, would be reasonably expected to
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007