Appeal No. 2001-1504
Application 08/618,263
been placed in any meaningful context which might demonstrate,
for example, a substantial share of the market or a
profitability per unit which is out of the ordinary. Such
bald sales figures constitute minimal, if any, evidence of
commercial success. See In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 137, 40
USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Cable Elec. Prods. Inc. v.
Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1026-27, 226 USPQ 881, 887-88
(Fed. Cir. 1985). Moreover, any demonstrated commercial
success is relevant in the obviousness
context only if there is proof that the sales were a direct
result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.
Id. The appellant’s attempt to establish such a nexus (see
declaration paragraphs 12 through 16 and Exhibit 2) rests on
Wooster’s unsupported contention the above noted sales figures
are attributable to the functional or operational advantages
purportedly afforded by the laminated jaw construction recited
in claim 16. The promotional literature included in Exhibit 2
simply does not support this assertion. To the extent that
the laminated jaw construction is mentioned in this literature
(see the article from the December 1997 edition of
Motorcyclist), it is touted for its strength, not any
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007