Appeal No. 2003-1592
Application 09/492,032
‘941 and Lee are analogous art with respect to the claimed invention because each reference “is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved,” that is, each
reference is involved with the modification of a drawer in order to isolate and secure the contents
therein from the environment outside of the drawer, which problems are addressed by appellants
with respect to the modification of the memorabilia drawer in order to isolate and secure the
memorabilia therein to preserve it from the environment of the closed casket, and thus each
reference “is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have
commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d
656, 659-60, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060-61 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Indeed, we find that Shanks ‘941 would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in the art1
that a gasket will seal a drawer from the environment of the refrigerator, maintaining the
conditions in the drawer when it is closed, such that it “retains the ambient moister of the space
and precludes the ingress of dry air and any odors which normally may be present in the
refrigerator interior . . . for extended periods of time” (col. 1, lines 6-16). We further find that
Lee would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in the art that a cam lock will address the
problem of a loose fitting locked drawer (col. 1, lines 5-24).
Therefore, we are of the opinion that not only is Shanks ‘941 and Lee analogous prior art,
but each would have provided the teaching, suggestion and motivation to one of ordinary skill in
this art to combine the teachings of modifications to isolate and secure the contents of a drawer
therein with the teachings of a memorabilia drawer of the casket of Biondo in the reasonable
expectation of providing a sealed, locked memorabilia drawer in the casket for preservation of
that memorabilia. See, e.g., Pro-Mold and Tool, supra; Keller, supra; see also In re Lee,
277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433-34 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Smith Industries medical
Systems, Inc. v. Vital Signs, Inc., 183 F.3d 1347, 1356, 51 USPQ2d 1415, 1420-21 (Fed. Cir.
1999); In re Mayne, 1043 F.3d 1339, 1342, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1997); ACS Hosp.
Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 9292, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
1 It is well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the
inferences one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably been expected to draw
therefrom, see In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782-83 (Fed. Cir.
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007