Appeal 2007-0458
Application 10/247,533
In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 266-67 (CCPA 1961); In re
Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2, 150 USPQ 441, 444 n.2 (CCPA 1966).
Notwithstanding this conclusion, we nevertheless agree with the
Examiner that the teachings of Card would have been reasonably
combinable with Yagasaki essentially for the reasons stated by the
Examiner. Appellant argues that Card -- a teaching tool designed to provide
insights to various relationships -- is non-analogous art since (1) the
reference is not in Appellant’s field of endeavor (searching and marketing
over the internet), nor is the reference reasonably pertinent to the problem
which Appellant is concerned (Br. 8-9). The Examiner argues that Card is
analogous art since (1) the claims are not limited to internet shopping or
marketing, and (2) even if they were, Card’s dynamic queries have interface
functionality similar to internet shopping applications. The Examiner adds
that Card’s dynamic queries are applicable to a wide variety of applications
requiring searching or querying, including internet shopping (Answer 21-
22).
We agree with the Examiner that Card constitutes analogous art.
"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 Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72
USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
First, Card’s viewable interface is in the same field of endeavor --
interfaces for viewing search results. In our view, Appellant’s field of
endeavor is not limited to searching and marketing over the internet, but
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013