Appeal No. 1996-1877
Application No. 08/149,716
§ 103, we must reweigh the examiner’s evidence of obviousness
along with the considerable evidence regarding secondary
considerations submitted by appellants. When we do so, we
find ourselves in agreement with appellants’ position (brief,
pages 22-29) that the evidence of secondary considerations
outweighs the prima facie case of obviousness established by
the examiner, and that the subject matter set forth in claims
24-38 of the present application would not have been obvious
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We find it of particular importance that prior to March
1990, Tekmar Company did not sell any static headspace
samplers, and now subsequent to introduction of a sampler
which operates in accordance with the method as claimed in the
present application, they have achieved an approximately 22%
share of the U.S. market, while the market share of Hewlett
Packard/DANI and Perkin Elmer have been correspondingly
reduced. It is also significant that prior to their
introduction of their Model 7000/7050 Headspace Autosampler,
there were apparently none on the market which included built-
in mixing or agitation of a sample vial while the vial was
15
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007