Appeal No. 98-0806
Application No. 08/693,588
considering his problem. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659, 23
USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Here, the appellant notes that Bellows is directed to a
solar energy collecting apparatus and is in no way concerned
with providing a safeguard for protecting pipes against damage
due to the freezing of aqueous fluids contained therein, and
thereafter urges that Bellows is not within the appellant's
field of endeavor. It is also the appellant's contention that
Bellows is not reasonably pertinent to the appellant's problem
since Bellows' clip 37 is used to secure an elongated
cylindrical member within a tubular member which has no fluid
flow therethrough whereas the appellant's clip 32 solves the
problem of how to anchor the tubular core 10 against the force
of fluid flowing within a pipe. This latter argument,
however, is based on an overly narrow view of what prior art
is reasonably pertinent to the appellant's invention.
There is little doubt that Bellows is not within the same
field of endeavor as the appellant's device which protects
pipes against damage due to the freezing of aqueous fluid
contained therein. However, all the problems encountered by
the appellant are not unique only to such devices or, for that
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007