Appeal No. 2006-1347 Page 12
Application No. 10/651,205
The appellants argue that Fast is non-analogous art because it pertains to
product information display tags for use with support hooks, which is a different
field of endeavor than brace assemblies for ceiling fans and fixtures. The
appellants further argue that the problem being addressed by Fast is not reasonably
pertinent to solving the problem associated with providing a brace assembly having
adjustable mounting surfaces to accommodate various wall thicknesses when
installing an electrical box. (Appellants’ Reply Brief, p. 14).
The analogous-art test requires that the Board show that a
reference is either in the field of the applicant's endeavor
or is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the
inventor was concerned in order to rely on that reference
as a basis for rejection. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992). References are selected as being
reasonably pertinent to the problem based on the
judgment of a person having ordinary skill in the art. Id.
(“[I]t is necessary to consider ‘the reality of the
circumstances,’-in other words, common sense-in
deciding in which fields a person of ordinary skill would
reasonably be expected to look for a solution to the
problem facing the inventor.” Id. (quoting In re Wood,
599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (C.C.P.A.1979))).
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986-87, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335-1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
We agree with the appellants that Fast is not in the field of the appellants’
endeavor. The appellants’ general field of endeavor is a brace assembly to support
an outlet box. While Fast similarly relates to a support assembly, the assembly
(10) of Fast is designed to be used with a support hook (32) to hold products. We
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007