Appeal No. 2004-1372
Application No. 09/577,551
As the court in In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23 USPQ2d
1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992) stated:
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.
As is apparent from the appellants’ own discussion of the
“Background of Invention” at pages 1 through 4 of the
specification, both Davey and Miyamoto meet either prong of the
analogous art test set forth in Clay. We find that both Davey and
Miyamoto, like the appellants’ invention, are related to ink
compositions for plastic or polymeric films in general, inclusive
of the polymeric or plastic film used in Hassel’s and the
appellants’ bandages. Compare the appellants’ specification, page
1, with Davey, column 1, lines 8-11 and Miyamoto, page 1, line 5
and page 7, lines 11-13. Although both Miyamoto and Davey
exemplify flexible packagings and floor tile products,
respectively, they are not limited thereto as indicated supra. As
such, we determine that Davey and Miyamoto are within the same
field of endeavor, i.e., ink compositions for polymeric films, such
as polymeric backings for bandages. This determination appears to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007