Appeal No. 2001-2488
Application No. 09/368,455
599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979).
There is no dispute here that Parker is not within the same
field of endeavor as the fuel gas reforming of appellant (and
Lesieur). See the Brief, page 9, and the Answer, page 7.
However, we agree with the examiner that Parker is “reasonably
pertinent” to the particular problem with which appellant is
involved, namely heat transfer between adjacent walls or passages
so that excessive heat does not damage the walls (specification,
page 2, ll. 19-25, describing the “over heating problem”;
specification, page 4, ll. 19-21, describing an object as
providing a “longer useful life due to temperature control of
burner gas passage walls”; and specification, page 6, ll. 24-26,
describing the prior art problem of high burner gas passage wall
temperatures which shorten the useful life of the reformer). As
correctly found by the examiner (Answer, page 5), Parker
discloses a solution to the problem of high temperature gradients
in core areas of counterflow heat exchangers, which problem can
cause thermal fatigue cracking and splitting (col. 1, ll. 8-40).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that Parker is reasonably pertinent to the problem with
which appellant is involved and thus is analogous art.
Therefore we proceed and consider the examiner’s obviousness
analysis. When determining the patentability of a claimed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007