Appeal No. 2006-2484 Παγε 8
Application No. 10/837,337
Appellants have not substantiated their argument with
persuasive evidence to show that any required ingredients of
Smith’s composition would render that composition unsuitable as
an aerospace sealant. Moreover, the test for non-analogous art
is first whether 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). Representative claim 1 is
drawn to a composition in shaped form and is not limited to an
aerospace application of a sealant. Thus, appellants arguments
respecting Smith representing non-analogous art are generally
misplaced.
In so far as appellants’ reference to dependent claim 24 at
page 4 of the brief may be considered a separate non-analogous
art argument respecting that dependent claim, we note that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not limit the sealant strip
composition of Smith to automobile windshield applications, as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007