Opinion ID: 151302
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Relevant Prior Art

Text: Two criteria are relevant in 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. Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed.Cir.2010) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59 (Fed.Cir.1992)). Whether a reference in the prior art is analogous is a fact question. In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 658. With respect to the sleeve patents, the district court concluded that the jury could implicitly find that the Down patent was outside the scope of the relevant art. See JMOL Order, 2009 WL 1309774, at . However, the Down patent is specifically directed to a trailer-towing application, adaptable to a motor vehicle such as an automobile for towing by fitting a rear towing attachment for releasably attaching the tow-bar of a trailer such as a boat trailer, horse box, caravan or other vehicle. Down patent col.1 ll.9-12. Thus, the Down patent is clearly within the same field of endeavor as the sleeve patents. With respect to the seal patent, the district court concluded that the jury could implicitly find that padlock seals were not relevant prior art. JMOL Order, 2009 WL 1309774, at . The district court instructed the jury without objection that obviousness must be determined based on the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the field of locksmithing. J.A. 3332. Given that this jury instruction appears to define the field of endeavor as locksmithing, there is no reason why padlocks should be excluded from the relevant prior art. Tellingly, the '649 patent itself refers to the prior art padlock in the background of the invention. '649 patent col.1 11.24. Moreover, the '649 patent itself defines its scope broadly, and makes clear that the claims are directed to locking device[s] generally. See id. col.1 ll.9, col.4 ll.65-66. Even if the prior art padlocks were not within the same field of endeavor, they are nonetheless clearly reasonably pertinent to the problem that the inventor was trying to solve. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 659. The Supreme Court's decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 167 L.Ed.2d 705 (2007), directs us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly, stating that  familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. Id. at 402, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (emphasis added). Here, the prior art padlocks were clearly directed toward the same problem the inventor was trying to solve in the '649 patent, namely, preventing the ingress of contaminants into the locking mechanism. Thus, as a matter of law, the prior art Down patent and the padlock seals were pertinent prior art in the '649 patent, and the district court erred in finding that they were not. We need not determine whether the Master Lock 37D was pertinent prior art.