Appeal 2006-2849
Application 10/310,200
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).
The Appellant correctly points out that orthodontics is not the
Appellant’s field of endeavor (Br. 7; Reply Br. 2). The Appellant argues
that the problem solved by Reilly is preventing screw disengagement in
orthodontic devices, whereas the problem solved by the Appellant is
constraining movement of vehicles (Br. 8; Reply Br. 3).
Constraining vehicle movement is not the problem solved by the
Appellant. That problem was solved by Fox (col. 3, ll. 30-51). The problem
solved by the Appellant is that Fox is limited to turning the exteriorly
threaded shaft (16) by use of a wing nut (17) and a hexagonal nut (17’)
(Specification ¶¶ 0005-0006). The Appellant’s solution to that problem is to
rotate the exteriorly threaded shaft with an actuator rod inserted into
apertures in a spindle attached to the shaft midway between its ends.
2 The Appellant argues that “there was no teaching, suggestion, or motivation
to combine the prior art references” (Br. 7), but the Appellant provides no
rationale, separate from the nonanalogous art argument, in support of that
argument.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013