Appeal No. 2004-0825
Application 09/954,786
not stupidity, which is presumed in the art. In re Sovish,
769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In light of the foregoing, we agree with the examiner’s
anticipation finding and accordingly hereby sustain his § 102
rejection of claim 20 as being anticipated by the “Pesticide”
reference.
The § 103 rejection of claim 21 as being unpatentable
over Brown in view of Bond likewise is hereby sustained. To the
extent that the appellants may consider Bond to be from a non-
analogous art, we cannot agree. This is because the Bond
reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem of
bismuth:tin alloys with which the appellants were involved. See
In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979).
Moreover, it would have been obvious for the artisan to make
the bismuth:tin alloy sinkers of Brown from the specific
58% bismuth:42% tin alloy disclosed by Bond (see lines 4-5
in column 4) in order to effectuate Brown’s alloy sinker
desideratum via a specific bismuth:tin alloy known in the prior
art as evinced by Bond. Finally, we perceive no rational support
for the appellants’ argument that the examiner’s proposed
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007