Appeal No. 2006-1451
Application No. 08/802,472
there are two tests for whether art is analogous. A reference is appropriate prior art if
within the field of the inventor’s endeavor. Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. Barnes-
Hind/Hydrocurve, Inc., 796 F.2d 443, 449 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Alternatively, a reference
qualifies as prior art if “reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor was involved.” Id. “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 his
problem.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
We note that the package in Gossard is a novelty package shaped to resemble a
sports icon that may be carried on one’s person. Therefore, art that is reasonably
pertinent to novelty packages shaped to resemble a sports icon that may be carried on
one’s person would qualify as analogous art. Schaffer’s package containing a radio is
shaped to resemble a baseball, which is, in fact, one of Gossard’s specific
embodiments, and may be carried on one’s person. A person of ordinary skill in the art
in constructing packages of a size that might be carried on one’s person would have
been motivated to look to art of similar articles that shows how to avoid losing such an
article because of the nature of the manner of conveyance on one’s person.
Accordingly, we find that Schaffer is analogous art with respect to the claims and to
Gossard.
The appellant also argues essentially the same as in claim 5, particularly the lack
of a specific description that the photographs are used during the respective activity,
and our discussion with respect to claim 5 applies here as well.
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007