Appeal No. 2003-0693
Application No. 09/006,248
General Motors Corporation. Mr. Sawdon states on page 5 of the
declaration that it is his understanding and belief that these EAEs
were purchased by General Motors primarily based on their technical
superiority. Thus, the Sawdon declaration is submitted as evidence
of commercial success of the claimed invention.
With regard to evidence of commercial success, a nexus must be
established between the merits of the invention and the evidence
proffered if such evidence is to be accorded substantial weight in
deciding the issue of obviousness. See Simmons Fastener Corp. v.
Illinois Tool Works, Inc., 739 F.2d 1573, 1575, 222 USPQ 744, 746
(Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1065 (1985). In the
present case, it is not clear that the EAEs sold to General Motors
by BTM embodied the claimed invention of claims 29, 31, 33 and 41.
This is so because Mr. Sawdon’s declaration does not indicate
whether or not the EAEs sold to General Motors included a base
“having a fluid distribution manifold with at least two parallel
and elongated internal bores, said bores being operable to carry
fluid” as required by claim 29. Moreover, the declarant’s
statements concerning the alleged sale3 of 200 EAEs to General
Motors are ambiguous and have not been placed in any meaningful
3It is noted that these statements are not supported by any
objective evidence tending to support the asserted sale.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007