Ex Parte Hatch - Page 3




             Appeal No. 2005-0941                                                                                   
             Application 09/941,029                                                                                 

             In the present case, the prior panel determined that Spremulli, Emmer and Margulies                    
             were each within appellant’s field of endeavor, which the specification of the present                 
             application (page 1) indicates “relates to a heat-conducting support.” The prior panel                 
             specifically found that each of the above-noted patents related to a support formed of metal,          
             thereby inherently having the capability of conducting heat, even if such a characteristic was         
             not specifically disclosed therein, thus making the supports in the three patents at issue             
             heat-conducting supports. We see no reason to alter or overturn those determinations.                  
             Appellant’s arguments in the request for rehearing do not appear to specifically challenge             
             the prior panel’s determination that Spremulli, Emmer and Margulies are within appellant’s             
             field of endeavor. Instead, the arguments appear to urge only that one of ordinary skill in the        
             art, seeking to solve appellant’s problem of providing good support for a vessel as well as            
             good heat transfer thereto, would not reasonably be expected or motivated to look to the               
             garbage can of Spremulli, the coffee bottle support plate of Emmer, or the paper sundae                
             dish holder of Margulies. Thus, it appears that appellant’s arguments are directed to the              
             second aspect of the above-noted test for non-analogous art, i.e., whether a reference is              
             reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned.                  
             However, we note that the twofold test defined above is fully satisfied by the prior panel’s           
             determination that each of the three applied patents in question are within appellant’s field of       
             endeavor. Thus, in this case, no inquiry into whether the references are reasonably                    
             pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned is required to               
             resolve the issue of non-analogous art. On that basis alone, appellant’s arguments in the              
             request for rehearing are unpersuasive. Moreover, we simply do not agree with appellant’s              

                                                           3                                                        



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007