Appeal No. 2000-1304
Application No. 08/994,974
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to repair the worn hub of [the admitted prior
art] by removing the worn portion of the hub
and shrink fitting a sleeve over the resulting
reduced diameter portion of the hub, as taught
by Sheen, to avoid complete replacement of the
impeller or turbine, or to avoid replacement of
the entire hub portion of the impeller or turbine
[answer, page 5].
The threshold issue in this appeal is whether Sheen is
non-analogous art as urged by the appellants. In an
obviousness determination under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), art which
is non-analogous is too remote to be treated as prior art. In
re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir.
1992). There are two criteria for determining whether art is
analogous: (1) whether the art is from the field of the
inventor’s endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and
(2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s
endeavor, whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventor was involved. Id.
The examiner concedes (see page 8 in the answer) that
Sheen is not from the field of the appellants’ endeavor:
torque converters. Nonetheless, the examiner submits that
“Sheen is directed to the same problem with which [appellants
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007