【摘錄】102的prior art適用於103的prior art？

【摘錄】102的prior art適用於103的prior art？

References within the statutory terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102 qualify as prior art for an obviousness determination only when analogous to the claimed invention.  In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992).  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 Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979).

法定條文35 U.S.C. § 102範圍內的參考文獻，僅在該參考文獻類似於所請發明時，才具有用以決定顯而易知性之先前技術的資格。

參考：IN RE ALBERTO  LEE BIGIO，一個討論prior art的案例。

see also Deminski, 796 F.2d at 442 (determining that the cited references were within the same field of endeavor where they “have essentially the same function and structure”).
類似的領域：具有實質上相等的功能及結構

To the contrary, substantial evidence must support the PTO’s factual assessment of the field of endeavor.  Gartside, 203 F.3d at 1315.  In other words, the PTO must show adequate support for its findings on the scope of the field of endeavor in the application’s written description and claims, including the structure and function of the invention.