Appeal No. 2005-0288 Page 10
Application No. 10/075,786
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.
In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In the present
instance, we are informed by the appellants' originally filed specification (p. 2) that the
present invention is directed to a simple, yet effective, abrasion-resistant protective
system for lengths of material such as hoses, cables, ropes, etc. of the type used in
high abrasion applications. Holland teaches that his fabric has a high level of
tear-resistance, abrasion resistance, cut-and-stab resistance, and chemical and cold
resistance to improve the strength and durability of the fabric and thus falls at least into
the latter category of the Wood test, and logically would have commended itself to an
artisan's attention in considering the appellants' problem. Thus, we conclude that
Holland is analogous art.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007