Appeal No. 2004-2244
Application No. 10/208,906
lines 17-18 of Van Auken) as is conventionally known in the scrim
cloth/fabric art” (answer, page 3; emphasis deleted).
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellants and by the examiner concerning the above noted
rejection.
OPINION
We cannot sustain this rejection.
On pages 5-7 of their brief, the appellants have presented a
thoroughly persuasive argument that the Holtrop reference is from
a non-analogous art. We will not burden the record with a
reiteration of the very capable presentation made by the
appellants. Suffice it to say, therefore, that Holtrop is non-
analogous art because it is not from the field of the inventor’s
endeavor and because it is not reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventor was involved.
See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). Thus, the reference is not “prior art” with respect
to the here claimed invention and accordingly can not be applied
in the context of the Section 103 rejection advanced by the
examiner. Id.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007