Appeal No. 2005-1438
Application No. 10/027,433
The appellants appear to argue that Deith cannot be properly
combined with Oku since Deith is not from analogous art. See the
Brief, pages 5-6. We cannot agree.
As stated in the court in In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59,
23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992):
Two criteria have evolved for determining whether
prior art is analogous: (1) whether the art is from the
same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem
addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the
field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference
still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
with which the inventor is involved.
We find that Deith passes either criteria for analogous art set
forth in Clay. We find that Deith, like Oku and the claimed
subject matter, is directed to glazing or coating hard surfaces,
such as the surfaces of ceramic products. Compare Deith, pages
1-3, with the specification, page 3 and Oku in its entirety.
Thus, we concur with the examiner that Deith is within the
inventors’ field of endeavor. Moreover, we find that Deith, like
the appellants, is directed to employing a low temperature sol-
gel glazing process in order to avoid the high temperature
condition associated with a conventional high temperature glazing
method. Compare Deith, pages 1-3, with the specification, pages
3-4. Thus, we find that Deith is at least reasonably pertinent
to the particular problem with which the inventors were involved.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007