Appeal No. 2004-1246
Application No. 09/960,948
that is aligned in substantially the same direction as the
longitudinal axis of the base member of the brush. The examiner
concedes that each of the primary references lacks the claimed
feature of an overshell of non-rigid compressible material for the
applicator brush. The examiner takes the position, however, that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
provide the applicator brush of Funcke or Kemmerer with an
overshell of non-rigid compressible material in view of the
teachings of Beals in order to provide a better grip, and thus
arrive at the claimed subject matter.
Appellant argues, first, that Funcke, Kemmerer and Beals
constitute nonanalogous art. The question of nonanalogous art is a
threshold issue in determining whether the examiner has established
a prima facie case of obviousness. In resolving this issue, we
note that the law presumes full knowledge by the hypothetical
worker having ordinary skill in the art of all the prior art in the
inventor’s field of endeavor. With regard to prior art outside the
inventor’s field of endeavor, knowledge is presumed only as to
those arts reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
which the inventor was involved. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656,
659, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and In re Wood, 599
F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979). Thus, the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007