In one design case, an inventor of a contemporary coffee table struggled to ensure that it had a unique design. The courts have examined the designs of other contemporary furniture and concluded that they would reasonably fall within the jurisdiction of a designer with ordinary industry skills. Simple aspects of an invention, such as form or overall functionality, can be considered analog art if someone with ordinary skills in the field could come to the same conclusion about its purpose. An example of this concept is a case between Tissue Transplant Technology Ltd. & Human Biologics of Texas Ltd. and Mimedx Group, Inc. In this case, these were placental membrane tissue grafts and the use of asymmetric marking to help a surgeon determine the correct alignment of the tissue graft. Another company had used a marker on a lens implant to ensure it was properly aligned when inserted into the patient. The synthetic contact lens implant differed chemically and structurally from the tissue grafts of the placental membrane, and therefore it was not a case of analogous art. Another line of criticism is that courts often do not articulate their use of analogies in the sense of a «principle» inherent in a previous case. Where principles are used as arguments for an outcome, earlier cases are cited as examples of the application of the principle rather than as analogies with the facts of the present case. If another case is used as an analogy, the focus will be on how the analogy is «close», i.e.
the specificity of the common characterization of the facts of the two cases and how this classification relates to the reasoning of the earlier decision. The more specific an analogy is, the stronger it is; The more abstract the characterization, the weaker the argument as an analogy. The reason for this is that the more specific the analogy, the less room there is to distinguish the two cases, while the more abstract the analogy, the more reasons there are why the two cases can be considered significantly different. So, while it is legal to consent to tattooing, it is also legal to consent to a decorative brand image that is closely analogous.  On the other hand, the analogy between boxing and sadomasochistic activities is even more distant, although both involve the deliberate infliction of a certain level of damage.  See The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. v. Keith Alexander Ashe dba Spendology and Spendology LLC, Opposition No 91207409 (October 15, 2013) [unprecedented], where the Claimant`s evidence in its entirety was not sufficient to establish priority prior to the date of its constructive use. The board noted that the identification of the mark could be derived on the basis of indirect evidence. Examples of use of the mark could be its use in brochures, catalogues, advertisements in newspapers or articles in newspapers, trade publications or websites. Use in advertising must relate to the goods or services.
Securing a domain name with the trademark alone does not prove any use analogous to the use of the trademark. Some ideas and inventions are so diverse or distant that a person with unusual abilities would have very little chance of understanding them. When the idea or art is so unique and diverse, it is often referred to as non-analogue and does not fall within the prior art requirement of patent examination. However, analog art that is too similar to another invention or idea is unlikely to qualify for patent protection. Another mechanical example of analog technology occurred when a patent applicant claimed an invention of a double-acting high-pressure gas transmission line compressor that could also be used as a double-acting piston pump. Pumps and compressors have essentially the same structure and function, so the field included both types of moving fluids. A final justification for the doctrine of precedent is that it is desirable to give the courts the power to legislate. The idea here is that it is useful for the courts to have the power to improve and supplement the law (Hart 1994, 135-6; Raz 1979, 194-201). The assumption behind this justification is that the law is sometimes incomplete and requires greater precision, or that it is imperfect and needs to be corrected.