Appeal No. 95-0715
Application 07/936,942
USPQ2d 1619, 1622 (Fed. Cir. 1996), and cases cited therein (a
claim term will be given its ordinary meaning unless appellant
discloses a novel use of that term); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)(“During patent
prosecution the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly
as their terms reasonably allow. When the applicant states the
meaning that the claim terms are intended to have, the claims
are examined with that meaning, in order to achieve a complete
exploration of the applicant’s invention and its relation to
the prior art.”).
We further find that appellant’s contention that the
level of ordinary skill in the animal husbandry arts is
“relatively low” with respect to “feeding animals” (page 5) is
clearly without merit. Indeed, the high level of ordinary
skill in the art of feeding livestock sustains a considerable
segment of our food supply. As we set forth above, we will
presume skill on the part of those of ordinary skill in this
important art area. Sovich, supra.
We have also carefully considered appellant’s allegations
of commercial success and long-felt need (brief, pages 6-7).
We agree with the criticism made of Mr. Kalmbach’s declaration
of commercial success in the advisory action of March 7, 1994,
that “it is not apparent that [the commercial success] is
directly derived from the invention as claimed” (emphasis in
original). It is well settled that “[a] nexus must be
established between the merits of the claimed invention and
the evidence of commercial success before that issue becomes
relevant to the issue of obviousness.” Vandenberg v. Dairy
Equip. Co., 740 F.2d 1560, 1566-67, 224 USPQ 195, 198-99 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). Indeed, the fact that, in this case, appellant’s
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007