Appeal No. 2004-0071
Application No. 09/888,445
As explained by the examiner, appellant’s specification
describes the prior art as encompassing, inter alia, a porous
sheet substrate composed of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) from
which pieces are to be cut using a punching machine.
Wilk shows a technique for removing pieces of material from
a PTFE substrate by providing perforations (cut and non-cut
portions) along the outlines defining the pieces of material to
be later sheared from the substrate.
The primary issue in this appeal is whether Wilk is
analogous art, viz., whether the teachings of Wilk are reasonably
pertinent or applicable to the particular problem with which the
appellant was concerned. We answer this question in the
affirmative.
There is no question that, in determining whether a
reference is applicable to an appellant’s claims for purposes of
establishing obviousness, a two-fold analysis is made. First,
one decides if the reference is within the field of the
appellant’s endeavor. If it is not, one next determines whether
the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
with which the appellant was concerned.
Here, we can agree with the appellant that Wilk is not
within the field of appellant’s endeavor for the reasons
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007