Interference No. 103,208
Hoshino et al. v. Tanaka
whatever that is, and further assuming that the improvement is
with respect to all types of optical systems, it should be
noted that it is only "unexpected" beneficial results which
are an objective indicia of nonobviousness, see, e.g., In re
Baxter Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d 388, 392, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285
(Fed. Cir. 1991), In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ
191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984), and not any "expected" beneficial
results. To the contrary, expected beneficial results are
strong evidence of obviousness of the claimed invention, just
as unexpected beneficial results are evidence of
unobviousness. In re Skoll, 523 F.2d 1392, 1397, 187 USPQ
481, 484 (CCPA 1975); In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950, 186
USPQ 80, 82 (CCPA 1975); In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 537, 152
USPQ 602, 604 (CCPA 1967).
Mr. Utagawa’s declaration accompanying Motion H2 nowhere
asserts, much less establishes or demonstrates that the so-
called "substantial improvements" or mere improvements are
unexpected. We decline to simply assume that the alleged
improvements are or
- 26 -
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007