Appeal No. 2005-1099
Application No. 09/334,974
(September 7, 2004)). Our consideration of a particular claim
is indicated in each rejection, respectively, below.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the appellants’ brief and reply
brief and the examiner’s answer and the evidence of record.
This review has led us to the following determinations.
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 21-
23, 26-28, and 65-67 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over Moysan in view Eichholzer
We consider claims 1, 7, 65, and 66 in this rejection.
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on
pages 3-8 of the answer. Appellants’ position regarding this
rejection is set forth on pages 3-8 of the brief, and appellants
also set forth arguments in the reply brief.
Appellants first argue that Eichholzer is non-analogous art
to appellants’ invention, and also to Moysan. We disagree. We
refer to the examiner’s comments regarding this issue, beginning
on page 17 of the answer. For those reasons, we are not
persuaded by appellants’ arguments. We also note that the test
of whether a reference is from an analogous art is first,
whether it is within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, and
second, if it is not, whether it is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventor was involved. See 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 is one which, because of the
matter with which it deals, logically would have commended
itself to an inventor’s attention in considering the inventor’s
problem. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659, 23 USPQ2d 1058,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007