Appeal No. 2003-0505 Page 4
Application No. 08/527,679
is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. In re
Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979); see also In re Deminski, 796
F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ 313, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1986). To label Nehls as “analogous art” merely
means that the teachings of this reference should be considered when analyzing the question of
whether it would have been obvious to modify the device of DE 374. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738,
741, 226 USPQ 771, 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Appellant’s device is a sludge removing device, i.e. a filter for removing solids from a
liquid solution. Nehls, likewise, relates to systems for filtering solids from liquids (Nehls at col.
1, ll. 6-10). At the very least, Nehls is reasonably pertinent to the problems that arise in solid-
liquid separation, including the problems of cleaning and filter cake release. As Nehls is
pertinent to the particular problem with which Appellant was involved, it is analogous prior art.
Wood, 599 F.2d at 1036, 202 USPQ at 174; Deminski, 796 F.2d at 442, 230 USPQ at 315.
Having determined that Nehls is “analogous prior art” to be considered in the context of
making an obviousness determination, we move to the question of whether “the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter
as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)(2001).
The only difference between the device of claim 1 and the device of DE 374 resides in the
tapered shape of the holes. In concluding that the modification would have been obvious, the
Examiner relies upon the suggestion in Nehls that tapering holes in a filter element assists
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007