Appeal No. 2006-0022 Παγε 12
Application No. 09/810,943
First, Harris is analogous art. 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. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23 USPQ2d 1058,
1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442, 230 USPQ 313,
315 (Fed. Cir. 1986); 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 logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in
considering his problem because of the matter with which it deals. In re Clay, 966 F.2d
at 659, 23 USPQ2d at 1061. Harris is clearly not from the same field of endeavor (i.e.,
a method and system for controlling the reaction of safety restraint system in a vehicle
in response to weight and position of a vehicle occupant). However, in the present
instance, we are informed by the appellants' originally filed specification that the
invention is particularly directed to a method and system for more accurately
determining weight. Harris teaches a weighing device that improves system accuracy
and thus falls into category (2) of the analogous art test, and logically would have
commended itself to an artisan's attention in considering the appellants' problem. Thus,
we conclude that Harris is analogous art.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007