Appeal No. 2005-0117 Page 9
Application No. 09/860,423
have modified the protective cover of Andrieu so as to utilize Spectra® fibers as set forth
in the rejection under appeal. We find the appellants' arguments unpersuasive for the
following reasons.
First, while Andrieu's cover is not formed from a high performance yarn3, the
teachings of Holland are sufficient to have made it obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the protective cover of
Andrieu so as to utilize Spectra® fibers. In this regard, we note the rejection is under
35 U.S.C. § 103 not 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Second, while Holland is directed to a cargo curtain, not a protective sleeve,
Holland is analogous art. The test for non-analogous art is first whether the art is within
the field of the inventor's endeavor and, if not, whether it is reasonably pertinent to the
problem with which the inventor was involved. In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202
USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979). A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it
may be in a different field of endeavor, it logically would have commended itself to an
inventor's attention in considering his problem because of the matter with which it deals.
3The appellants' specification (p. 2) teaches that a high- strength (high
performance) yarn has a tensile modulus equal to or greater than 150 grams/denier and
a tenacity equal to or greater than 7 grams/denier.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007