Appeal No. 97-3194 Page 32
Application No. 08/442,816
(Fed. Cir. 1985). Furthermore, the appellant failed to submit
any factual evidence that would demonstrate the nexus between
the sales and the claimed invention - for example, an
affidavit from the purchaser explaining that the product was
purchased due to the claimed features. In the present case,
the sales may have been due to lower manufacturing costs, the
market position of Winner, prior relations between Winner and
the companies to which the locks were sold, advertising, the
use of a trademark similar to Winner's trademarks used for
their steering wheel locks, or features of the locks
attractive to customers or other companies but unrelated to
the claimed subject matter (e.g., the protective cover as
recited in claims 37 and 38, the notch as recited in claim
22). In sum, the appellant simply has not carried his burden
to establish that a nexus existed between any commercial
success and the novel features claimed in claims 3, 4, 6, 9 to
20, 31 to 36 and 44 to 46.
In the final analysis, evidence of nonobviousness,
although being a factor that certainly must be considered, is
not necessarily controlling. See Newell Companies, Inc. v.
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007