Appeal No. 2006-1085
Application No. 10/392,209
applied patents, and that in any event John teaches away from the
examiner’s proposed combination.
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 (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 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 Karashima is generally within
appellant’s field of endeavor, i.e., a wheeled cart or platform (scooter) for
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007