Appeal No. 2000-0081
Application No. 08/785,099
59, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992):
Two criteria have evolved for determining
whether prior art is analogous: (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 the present case, even if Stahl is not from the same field
of endeavor, it satisfies criterion (2) in that it is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
appellant is involved, namely, the thermal insulation of a
conduit containing a heated fluid. Thus, Stahl is analogous
art.
On pages 12 and 13 of the brief, appellant presents a
number of other arguments as to why it would not have been
obvious to modify the Fleissner apparatus in view of Stahl.
After fully considering the record in light of these arguments
and the arguments presented in the examiner’s answer, we
conclude that claim 1 is patentable over the combination of
Fleissner and Stahl. Given the fact that Stahl discloses that
the inner conduit must be prestressed, and in view of
Fleissner’s lack of disclosure of the structure of the right-
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007