Appeal 2007-1554
Application 10/844,387
(ordinary mechanics know how to use bolts, rivets and screws and it is obvious that
any one knowing how to use such devices would know how to arrange a deflecting
plate at one side of a circular saw which had such a device properly arranged on
the other side).
When multiple prior art references are used to reject a claim, then the prior
art references should be "analogous." Prior art is "analogous" when a person
having ordinary skill in the art would consider it relevant or related to the invention
sought to be patented. Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 229, 189 USPQ 257, 261
(1976) (data processing system used in large business organization found to
analogous to inventor's data process system used in banking industry); Graham,
383 U.S. at 35, 148 USPQ at 473 (1966) (where inventor was attempting to solve
mechanical closure problem, liquid containers having pouring spouts found to be
analogous to an inventor's pump spray insecticide bottle cap); Cuno Engineering
Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84, 91-92, 51 USPQ 272, 275-76
(1941) (thermostat to break circuit in a electric heater, toaster or iron found to be
analogous to a circuit breaker used in an inventor's cordless cigar lighter); Mast,
Foos & Co. v. Stover Mfg. Co., 177 U.S. 485, 493 (1900) (device used in mills
other than windmills held to be analogous to inventor's use of same device in
windmills); In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1446, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir.
1992) (if art is in the field of applicant's endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which an inventor is concerned, then the art is
"analogous").
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013