Appeal No. 1997-3667
Application 08/384,469
considerations." Imperial Chemical Industries PLC v. Danbury Pharmacal Inc., 18 USPQ2d 1497,
1508 (D. Del. 1990), citing, Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387,
1392, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The probative value of the objective evidence necessarily
depends on the nexus between the evidence and the claimed invention. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip
Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1539, 218 USPQ 871, 879 (Fed. Cir. 1983). "To the extent the patentee
demonstrates the required nexus, his objective evidence of nonobviousness will be accorded more or
less weight." In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1580, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Unexpected results are one type of secondary consideration able to provide objective evidence
of nonobviousness. Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 991, 6 USPQ.2d 1601,
1608 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730
F.2d 1452, 1461, 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir. 1984). However, appellants must show that the
results are superior to and unexpected compared with the closest prior art. In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d
699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391-
92, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
In the instant case, we find that the April 8 declaration of Mr. Takeuchi fails these tests, as the
declaration of April 8 is insufficient to overcome the obviousness of the claimed invention. First, we do
not find an adequate nexus between the merits of the claimed invention (pre-sintering of the substrate
and lamination without adhesive) and the evidence proffered on secondary considerations (the test
results as to Examples I through V discussed in the declaration). Second, we find that appellants have
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007