Appeal No. 2006-1258 Page 4
Application No. 10/243,241
providing circulation of air between the surfaces (col. 3,
lines 46-49).
The appellants argue that Rabenbauer and Whitecar are
nonanalogous art (brief, pages 5-6). The test of whether a
reference is from an analogous art is first, whether it is within
the field of the inventor's endeavor, and second, if it is not,
whether it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
which the inventor was involved. See 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 is one which, because of the matter with which it
deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's
attention in considering the inventor’s problem. See In re Clay,
966 F.2d 656, 659, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Both
Rabenbauer and Whitecar are in the appellants’ field of endeavor,
which is devices for controlling the temperature of an item
(specification, ¶ 0001), and are reasonably pertinent to solving
the problem solved by the appellants, which is keeping a fungible
item cool with ice packs. Consequently, Rabenbauer and Whitecar
are analogous art.
The appellants argue that there would have been no
motivation to use Whitecar’s spacers in Rabenbauer’s device to
make it easier to remove the ice packs (brief, pages 6-7). The
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007