Appeal No. 2006-0228
Application No. 10/158,028
Appellants contend (brief, page 7) that Mahaffey is non-
analogous art to the art of the present invention, which
appellants characterize as being limited to the art of two piece
molded containers, and urge that the examiner’s use of Mahaffey
stems from improper hindsight derived from appellants’ invention.
We do not agree with either of appellants’ assertions. In
considering the question of non-analogous prior art for
resolution of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the law presumes
full knowledge by the hypothetical worker having ordinary skill
in the art of all the prior art in the inventor's field of
endeavor. With regard to prior art outside the inventor's field
of endeavor, knowledge is presumed only as to those arts
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor was involved. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d
1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992), In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 202 USPQ
171 (CCPA 1979) and In re Antle, 444 F.2d 1168, 170 USPQ 285
(CCPA 1971). Thus, the determination that a reference is from a
non-analogous art is twofold. First, it must be decided if the
reference is from within the inventor's field of endeavor. If
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007