Appeal No. 2006-3351
Application No. 10/011,882
via the teachings of Akram as these references lie in
disparate areas of feature processing” (Reply Brief,
Page 8, middle).
As quoted in In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324,
72 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (Fed Cir 2004), “Two separate
tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1)
whether the art is from the same field of endeavor,
regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the
reference is not within the field of the inventor's
endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor is involved. In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436,
442, 230 USPQ 313, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1986); See also In re
Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA
1979).” In this case, the Johansson and the Akram
patents both refer to the same field of endeavor as
Appellants’ invention, the creation of isolation
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013