Appeal No. 2006-0813
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,235
specifically appellant argues that the computerized nursing cart disclosed by McLaughlin
and the laptop computer are used in very different environments. Appeal Brief, p. 9. Thus,
appellant argues that McLaughlin’s and Connor’s teachings can not be combined because
they are not from the same field of endeavor.
We disagree.
Two criteria have evolved to aid in determining whether prior art is analogous: (1)
whether the art is from the same field of endeavor 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); 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).
McLaughlin teaches a computer controlled medical cart which includes conventional
computer components including a controller (CPU), memory, display, disk storage and a
keyboard for data entry. The computer, including the keyboard for data entry, is a
significant and essential component of McLaughlin’s cart. Similarly, a computer is a
significant and essential component of the claimed nursing station. We find that the
significance of a computer to McLaughlin’s and appellant’s nursing station reasonably
places McLaughlin’s computerized nursing station into the computer art. In other words,
the person ordinarily skilled in computer controlled medical carts would reasonably be
expected to be aware of new developments or improvements in computers and the
components of computers such as improved displays, keyboards, CPUs, memory and disk
storage. Thus, Connor is from the same field of endeavor as McLaughlin and the claimed
invention.
Even if McLaughlin and Connor are not from the same field of endeavor, Connor is
still analogous prior art under the second criterion for analogous prior art. While not
expressly stated in appellant’s specification, we find that the problem implicitly addressed
by the use of a removable keyboard or other data entry device is how to make data entry
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007