AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Raines 11/120,811 TURNER 102(e) KENNETH L. NASH EXAMINER HAMILTON, LALITA M

Ex Parte Raines 10/628,819 TURNER 102(b)/103(a) KENNETH L. NASH EXAMINER HAMILTON, LALITA M

Whether a reference is analogous art is part of the analysis of the scope and content of the prior art in the
obviousness determination. See Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG v. Hantscho Commercial Prods. Inc., 21 F.3d 1068, 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

The analogous-art test requires that the Board show that a 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. References are selected as being reasonably pertinent to the problem based on the judgment of a person having ordinary skill in the art.

In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986-87 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (Internal citations omitted).

A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field of endeavor, it logically would have recommended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem because of the matter with which it deals. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

Kahn, In re, 202 USPQ 772 (Comm’r Pat. 1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2012.01

Clay, In re, 966 F.2d 656, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2144.08

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Hochman 11/057,853 EXAMINER HO, CHUONG T
Ex Parte Moreau et al 10/925,737 EXAMINER STANLEY, MARK P
Ex Parte Roba et al 10/177,669 EXAMINER HOFFMANN, JOHN M
Ex Parte Svendsen 10/930,719 EXAMINER HWA, SHYUE JIUNN
Ex Parte Watanabe et al 10/910,308 EXAMINER LEE, SIN J

REHEARING

DENIED

Ex Parte Senda et al 10/502,686 EXAMINER THOMAS, BRADLEY H
Ex Parte Woods et al 11/470,060 EXAMINER PATEL, MUNJALKUMAR C