Appeal No. 2001-0444 Page 6
Application No. 08/949,803
We are unconvinced that the applied references do not constitute analogous art.
The test for analogous art outside an inventor’s field of endeavor is whether the art
pertains to the particular problem confronting the inventor. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656,
659, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Greene (Fed. Cir. 1994). Not only
are Arroyo 442 and Gareis within appellant’s field of endeavor, i.e., power and
communication transmission cables, but Arroyo 442 also pertains to the particular
problem confronting appellant, i.e., the use of such cables underwater. Arroyo 442
suggests the use of the cable underwater because the cable is disclosed as having
“water blocking provisions” (abstract) and as “preventing the passage of water through
a sheath system of the cable” (column 1, lines 15-16).
Appellant contends that the references are not analogous because they do not
relate to “withstanding underwater influences” (brief-page 11) and do not discuss “the
concerns posed by the underwater environment” (brief-page 12). Appellant’s argument
is not convincing because independent claim 7 and the claims dependent therefrom
recite nothing relevant to “withstanding underwater influences” and “concerns posed by
the underwater environment” or “protecting against underwater pressures, corrosion
from the sea, or other underwater influences” (brief-page 14). In fact, claim 7 merely
mentions the claimed power and communications transmission medium “for use in an
underwater environment” in the preamble, then recites in the body of the claim that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007