Appeal No. 2004-1280 Page 9
Application No. 09/630,938
soles to protect the wearer’s foot provides ample motivation for the modification
proposed by the examiner.
Appellant also appears to be arguing on pages 24 and 25 of the brief that Trolle
and Barma are non-analogous art to appellant’s invention, because Trolle and Barma
are directed to safety footwear while appellant’s invention is directed to athletic shoes.
For the following reason, we do not find this argument persuasive.
Two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior art is analogous: (1)
whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem
addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor,
whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
the inventor is involved. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060
(Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Deminski, 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).
In this instance, appellant’s specification informs us on page 1 that appellant’s invention
relates to the construction of a structural chassis “for an article of footwear, such as a
football shoe or a soccer shoe.” Moreover, claim 26 is directed broadly to an “article of
footwear,” not specifically to an athletic shoe. Trolle and Barma are also directed to
articles of footwear and thus are from the same field of endeavor as is appellant’s
invention. We therefore conclude that Trolle and Barma are analogous art to
appellant’s invention.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007