Ex Parte Murofushi et al - Page 16



              Appeal No. 2007-1530                                                                                     
              Application 10/095,112                                                                                   

                     reference is either in the field of the applicant's endeavor or is                                
                     reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was                                   
                     concerned in order to rely on that reference as a basis for rejection.  In                        
                     re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 [24 USPQ2d 1443] (Fed. Cir. 1992).                                
                     References are selected as being reasonably pertinent to the problem                              
                     based on the judgment of a person having ordinary skill in the art.  Id.                          
                     (“[I]t is necessary to consider ‘the reality of the circumstances,’—in                            
                     other words, common sense—in deciding in which fields a person of                                 
                     ordinary skill would reasonably be expected to look for a solution to                             
                     the problem facing the inventor.” (quoting In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032,                             
                     1036 [202 USPQ 171] (C.C.P.A. 1979))).                                                            
              Kahn, 441 F.3d at 986-87, 78 USPQ2d at 1335-36.  See also In re Clay, 966 F.2d                           
              656, 659, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[a] reference is reasonably                            
              pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor's                     
              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 view of KSR’s holding that “any need or problem known in the field of                          
              endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason                       
              for combining the elements in the manner claimed,” 127 S. Ct. at 1742,                                   
              82 USPQ2d at 1397 (emphasis added), it is clear that the second part of the                              
              analogous-art test as stated in Clay, supra, must be expanded to require a                               
              determination of whether the reference, even though it may be in a different field                       
              from that of the inventor's endeavor, is one which, because of the matter with                           
              which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an artisan’s (not                               
              necessarily the inventor’s) attention in considering any need or problem known in                        
              the field of endeavor.  Furthermore, although under KSR it is not always necessary                       
                                                          16                                                           



Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013