Appeal No. 2006-0228
Application No. 10/158,028
it is not, then it must be determined whether the reference is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor was concerned.
In the present case, we find that both Omata and Mahaffey
are within appellants’ field of endeavor which the specification
of the present application (page 1) indicates relates generally
to product dispensers. More particularly, we find that Mahaffey
is within the more limited field of appellant’s endeavor relating
to product dispensers including a clip adapted to secure the
dispenser to another article. In addition, we find that Mahaffey
also satisfies the second prong of the above noted test because
it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
appellants were concerned., i.e., product dispensers that are
easily misplaced and difficult to locate, or are not readily
available when needed or wanted. Thus, we conclude that Mahaffey
is analogous prior art and was properly considered by the
examiner in the obviousness rejections before us on appeal. As
a further point, we note that it is well settled that in cases
involving relatively simple every-day mechanical concepts, like
those involved in the present application, it is reasonable
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007