Appeal No. 96-2661
Application 08/177,975
Therefore, we find that the Examiner has established a prima
facie case of obviousness of Appellants' claims 17 through 19.
Appellants have provided secondary evidence in which
we have to consider to reach a finding of obviousness.
"[S]uch secondary considerations of nonobviousness as
commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failures of
others, and copying are considered in determining
obviousness." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int'l, 73
F.3d 1085, 1087-88, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239
(Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 822 (1996) citing
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467
(1966); Avia Group Int'l, Inc. v. L.A. Gear Cal., Inc., 853
F.2d 1557, 1564, 7 USPQ2d 1548, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1988). "It is
jurisprudentially inappropriate to disregard any relevant
evidence . . . . Thus evidence rising out of the so-called
'secondary considerations' must always when present be
considered en route to a determination of obviousness."
Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538, 218
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007