Appeal No. 2006-1395 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/687,875
the art is within the field of the inventor's endeavor and, if not, whether it is reasonably
pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was involved. 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 logically would have commended
itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem because of the matter with
which it deals. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In the present case, we are informed by the appellant's originally filed specification
that the invention is particularly directed to a cover for a baseball or softball bat and Zills
and Millis relate to covers for beverage containers and thus are outside the field of the
appellant's invention i.e. a cover for a baseball or softball bat. In addition, as the problem
addressed by the appellant's invention, i.e. protecting a baseball or softball bat from
sunlight, heat, moisture and general inclement weather (see specification at page 1), is
not discussed in either Zills or Millis, these references would not have commended
themselves to an artisan's attention in considering the appellant's problem. Thus, we
conclude that Zills and Millis are not analogous art.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 19.
We turn next to the examiner's rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Zills and Millis as applied to claim 19 and further in view of Block
or Moseley. Claim 20 differs from claim 19 in that claim 20 recites that the bat cover is
comprised of elastic rubber rather than neoprene and also includes a graphic displayed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007