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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007