Appeal No. 2001-1473
Application 08/946,736
order of 15,000 revolutions per minute, and (3) diamond-plated
hollow cylindrical ring disposed around a hub coupled to the
motor shaft to accommodate the small grinding wheel and high
speed motor. Claim 29, however, does not call for the drill
sharpener recited therein to have a small diameter grinding wheel
or a motor operating at a speed on the order of 15,000
revolutions per minute. 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; in other words, a nexus is required between the sales
and the merits of the claimed invention. 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). Because claim 29 does not recite
the particular grinding wheel and motor touted by the declaration
as critical to the asserted sales data, the requisite nexus
between the sales data and the subject matter recited in the
claim is missing. Thus, any commercial success shown by the
declaration is irrelevant to the issue of obviousness at hand.
In light of the foregoing, the Bernard I and II declarations
have little, if any, value as evidence of non-obviousness with
respect to the subject matter actually recited in claim 29. To
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007