Appeal No. 2003-0505 Page 3
Application No. 08/527,679
THE EVIDENCE
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies upon the following prior art
references:
Nehls 5,399,265Mar. 21, 1995
(filed Nov. 2, 1993)
Minemura (DE 374)2 4,337, 374 May 11, 1994
(German Published Application)
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
DE 374 in view of Nehls (Answer at § (11)). We affirm for the following reasons.
OPINION
Appellant argues that Nehls is not analogous art and thus the Examiner may not properly
rely upon it as a basis for formulating a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Brief at p. 12-14).
However, most of Appellant’s arguments are more appropriately made in connection with the
question of whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the device of DE 374 in
view of the teachings of Nehls. That is a separate question appropriately considered after a
determination that Nehls is analogous prior art. The question, in regard to analogous art, is
whether Nehls is within the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if it is not, whether the reference
2We rely upon and cite to the translation by Schrieber Translations, previously made of record.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007