Appeal No. 1996-1877 Application No. 08/149,716 Secondary considerations are also an essential component of the obviousness determination. See In re Emert, 124 F.3d 1458, 1462, 44 USPQ2d 1149, 1153 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("Without Emert providing rebuttal evidence, this prima facie case of obviousness must stand."). This objective evidence of nonobviousness includes copying, long felt but unsolved need, failure of others, see Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), commercial success, see In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689-90 (Fed. Cir. 1996), unexpected results created by the claimed invention, unexpected properties of the claimed invention, see In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1342, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990), licenses showing industry respect for the invention, see Arkie Lures, Inc. v. Gene Larew Tackle, Inc., 119 F.3d 953, 957, 43 USPQ2d 1294, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 316, 227 USPQ 766, 771 (Fed. Cir. 1985), and skepticism of skilled artisans before the invention, see In re Dow Chem. Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1988). One must consider all of the applicants’ evidence. See 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007