Appeal No. 2003-0625 Page 7
Application No. 09/954,729
who works in the laboratory where I work who has - consulted a reference in the
synthetic leather field for solutions to problems in developing launderably durable
retroreflective articles” (page 2, item 10), and that “I am not aware that synthetic leather
articles encounter these problems [optical element retention and preservation of the
reflective layer or material] or offer solutions to them” (page 3, item 12).
The test of whether a reference is from an analogous art is first, whether it is
within the field of the inventor's endeavor, and second, if it is not, whether it is
reasonably pertinent to the particular 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 is one
which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself
to an inventor’s attention in considering the inventor’s problem. See In re Clay, 966
F.2d 656, 659, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Because Maeda deals with the washing fastness of dyed polyurethanes (col. 6,
lines 16-33), Maeda logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in
considering the problem of poor washing fastness of dyed polyurethane layers of
retroreflective articles. Consequently, Maeda is analogous art.
For the above reasons we conclude that a prima facie case of obviousness of
the appellant’s claimed invention has been established and has not been effectively
rebutted by the appellant.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007