Appeal No. 97-1931
Application 08/364,826
application” [¶8, underlining added]. Spiegelhoff also gives
several “opinions” that the advantages of the claimed invention,
and not extraneous factors, were the only reasons for commercial
success [declaration, ¶10]. There are insufficient facts set
forth in the declaration, however, by which these opinions of
Spiegelhoff can be evaluated. We have no doubt that Spiegelhoff
believes his statements. We also have no doubt that the units
sold and licensed at least performed the basic operations of the
broadest claims. There is no factual evidence presented,
however, that the units were purchased or licensed based only on
the features of the appealed claims. Again there is no evidence
from the purchasers or licensees directly to substantiate this
belief of declarant. Any opinions on the ultimate legal
conclusion must be supported by sufficient facts capable of
independent and objective analysis by the finder of fact. Such
facts are not present here. Thus, we find appellants’ evidence
of secondary considerations insufficient to overcome the prima
facie case of obviousness established by the examiner.
We now consider the arguments of appellants and the
examiner as they specifically apply to individual claims. With
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007