Appeal No. 2001-2168
Application No. 09/083,307
conventional treatments as radiation and chemotherapy. The
examples disclosed in appellant’s specification do not
compare the results produced by appellant’s claimed
invention with results achieved by treatment with Lentz’
blood filtration system. For this reason alone,
appellant’s evidence of nonobviousness has little probative
weight.
Furthermore, evidence of nonobviousness is not
entitled to probative weight where the feature or
characteristic responsible for the asserted success is
found in the prior art and thus is not a novel
characteristic of the claimed invention. See Atiebolaget
Karlstads Mekaniska Wedsrdstad v. United States
International Trade Commission, 705 F.2d 1565, 1573,
217 USPQ 865, 874 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also In re Heldt,
433 F.2d 808, 811, 167 USPQ 676, 679 (CCPA 1970) (the
asserted success must be the direct result of the unique
characteristics of the presently claimed invention).
According to our findings as discussed supra, the Lentz
patent inherently discloses a blood filter having a cutoff
of 120,000 daltons for a set of appropriate operating
conditions. Therefore, a blood filter as claimed is not a
unique characteristic of appellant’s invention.
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007