Appeal No. 2005-0651
Application 09/826,486
1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In the case before us, we find that the
Examiner has pointed to an explicit statement in the prior art at
column 1, lines 10-12, of Hattori. We find it abundantly clear
that the combined teachings of Hundt and Hattori would have
suggested the invention of claim 1 without the use of
impermissible hindsight.
Appellant also argues at page 8 that “[t]he Hattori patent
is not directed in any way to the biometric security system
field.” We find this argument unpersuasive. We must determine
what is analogous prior art for the purpose of analyzing the
obviousness of the subject matter at issue. “In order to rely on
a reference as a basis for rejection of an applicant’s invention,
the reference must either be in the field of applicant's endeavor
or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem with which the inventor was concerned.” In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1446, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See
also In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ 313, 315 (Fed.
Cir. 1986); In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060-
61 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“A reference is reasonably pertinent if,
even though it may be in a different field from that of the
inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with
which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an
inventor’s attention in considering his problem.”); Wang
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007