Appeal No. 2004-1520 Page 8
Application No. 09/957,058
1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Berfield and Howard establish the obviousness of using
large back wheels and small eccentric front wheels on articles meant to be movable.
Appellant also argues, with respect to the combination of Yang and Berfield that
“a person ordinarily skilled in the art, seeking to solve a problem of supporting and
moving an elongated unstable golf bag, would not reasonably be expected or motivated
to look to bases for a drum-shaped stable tank.” (Brief, p. 12). In so far as Appellant is
arguing that Berfield is from a non-analogous art, we note that if the reference is within
the field of the inventor’s endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
with which the inventor was involved, the reference is deemed to be analogous prior art
and thus properly within the scope of prior art relevant to a determination of
obviousness. 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). Berfield is
reasonably pertinent to the problem of maneuverability of objects meant to be moved
and is, therefore, relevant to the determination of obviousness.
With regard to claim 5, Appellant further argues that the Examiner cannot
disregard portions of Howard inconsistent with the teachings of Yang (Brief, p. 14), but
those of ordinary skill in the art are just that: Of ordinary skill. That those of ordinary
skill in the art possessed the knowledge to use wheels together with legs or large rear
wheels in combination with smaller front wheels based on the amount of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007