Appeal No. 2005-1953 Page 11
Application No. 09/765,533
recited in the body of the claims. With this understanding of the claimed invention, we
will review the rejection under § 103.
Claims 1 and 3-23 are stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dionne. In the Office Action mailed May 14, 2003, page 3, the
Examiner states:
Dionne discloses a mat (figure 1) having an upper surface (24) and a
lower surface (20) and a symmetrical body placement guide (30) on the
upper surface of the mat; a patterned design (col. 3, lines 66-67 thru col.
4, lines 1-22) defining a longitudinal axis substantially extending the
length of and bisecting the upper surface and having a transverse axis
bisecting the longitudinal axis and indicia comprising a line (40)
positioned on the longitudinal axis at forty-five degree angles (figures 1,
3a-4b and 6-8); four equal quadrants (col. 4, line 23) defined by the
longitudinal and transverse axes where the quadrants are adjacent and
are a mirror image of adjoining adjacent quadrants (figures 1, 3a-4b and
6-8).
Appellant argues that Dionne is a non-analogous reference because Dionne's
field of endeavor is golf while the field of endeavor of the instant application is yoga.
(Brief, pp. 17-19; Reply Brief, filed February 11, 2004, pp. 9-11).
The Federal Circuit has delineated two indicia for indicating whether prior art
references are analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor,
regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the art is not within the same field of
endeavor, whether it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem to be solved. In
re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re
Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ 313, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007