The oral argument of the day is IN RE LIN, No. 2017-2263 (Fed. Cir. July 17, 2018). The oral argument was interesting in that the panel was searching for an outer boundary of what is pertinent art in the analogous art test.
In Wyers v. Master Lock, the court stated:
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)).
Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
The court only issued a Rule 36 Judgment for In re Lin [Link]; but, you can listen to the oral argument here: