Appeal No. 2002-1980
Application 09/264,769
658-59, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992)(citing In re
Deminiski, 796 F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ 313, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1986);
In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979).
Note also the common sense analysis in In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992) as to what fields of
endeavor an artisan would reasonably be expected to look for a
solution to the problems facing the appellant.
Ham is clearly not in the same field of endeavor as the
telephone environment set forth in the claims on appeal.
Additionally, we do not consider Ham to be reasonably pertinent
to the particular problems addressed by the claimed invention
since Ham's magnetic resonance imaging apparatus and its gradient
noise suppression approach is not in a field of endeavor that the
artisan would reasonably be expected to look at for solutions to
the problems facing appellant. That Ham teaches a wireless
headset in and of itself is not sufficient in our view for the
artisan to have considered such as analogous art in the telephone
field of invention.
Since we consider Ham to be nonanalogous art, the rejection
of the independent claims in the first stated rejection is
sustainable only as to independent claim 40. Each of independent
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007