The scope of analogous art is not defined by an inventor’s subjective perspective. Here, for example, although the inventor was specifically focused on using two-way communication satellites to monitor a driver’s mental state, more general prior art directed to “preventing accidents due to driver fatigue or impairment” was found to be analogous. “We reject [the applicant’s] contention that the inventor’s subjective intent or knowledge at the time of the invention is the controlling factor in determining whether art is analogous.” This would be a good case to consult and cite when arguing that two prior art references are non-analogous.
Background / Facts: The application on appeal here from rejection at the PTO is directed to using two-way communication satellites for regulating the start of a car’s ignition based on a driver’s mental state as determined by response times. Two prior art references were cited by the PTO in an obviousness rejection. The PTO found these references to be analogous art because “they are in the same field of endeavor of preventing accidents due to driver fatigue or impairment.”
Issue(s): Whether the references are in fact non-analogous art because they are not directed to the inventor’s more specific intent of using two-way communication satellites to monitor a driver’s mental state.
Holding(s): No. “We reject [the applicant’s] contention that the inventor’s subjective intent or knowledge at the time of the invention is the controlling factor in determining whether art is analogous. The scope of the field of endeavor is a factual determination based on the scope of the application’s written description and claims. [] If a reference is not within the relevant field of endeavor, it may still be properly considered if it is reasonably pertinent to the problem; that is, if it would have logically commended itself to an inventor’s attention. [] The Board and the Examiner correctly found that the relevant field of endeavor was preventing accidents due to driver fatigue or impairment, instead of the more narrow definition of the field of endeavor that [the applicant] proposed, because the [] application’s specification and claims are not so limiting.”