Appeal No. 2005-1204 Page 3
Application No. 10/057,476
The sole issue raised in this appeal by the appellants is that Foster is non-
analogous art and cannot be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The conflicting
viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the appellants regarding this issue are set
forth in the brief (filed March 8, 2004), the answer (mailed April 29, 2004) and the reply
brief (filed June 28, 2004).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claim 3, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we will sustain the rejection of claim 3 for the reasons which follow.
The scope of the relevant prior art usable in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
includes art "reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was
involved." Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1535, 218 USPQ 871, 876
(Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA
1979)). Therefore, the prior art relevant to an obviousness determination necessarily
encompasses not only the field of the appellants' endeavor but also any analogous arts.
See Wood, 599 F.2d at 1036, 202 USPQ at 174; Heidelberger Druckmaschinen v.
Hantscho Commercial, 21 F.3d 1068, 1071, 30 USPQ2d 1377, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007