Appeal No. 97-2642 Page 5
Application No. 08/094,461
As a preliminary matter, we have determined that both
McEachern and McConnell are analogous art. The test for non- 2
analogous art is first whether the art is within the field of
the inventor's endeavor and, if not, whether it is reasonably
pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was involved.
In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA
1979). A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it
may be in a different field of endeavor, it logically would
have commended 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, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1061
(Fed. Cir. 1992). In the present instance, we are informed by
the appellant's originally filed specification (p. 2) that the
invention is particularly directed to overcoming the drawbacks
of the prior art, most notably the large pressure drops needed
to provide the necessary heating to the oil. Both McEachern
and McConnell teach heating a liquid without utilizing a large
pressure drop and thus fall into the latter category of the
2The appellant argues (brief, pp. 22-25 and 43-44 and
reply brief, p. 4) that McEachern and McConnell represent
non-analogous art.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007