Appeal No. 2003-1754
Application No. 09/821,137 Page 16
evidence of secondary considerations. See Ashland Oil, Inc. v.
Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 305 n.42, 227
USPQ 657, 673-674 n. 42 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The term "nexus"
designates a factually and legally sufficient connection between
the objective evidence of nonobviousness and the claimed
invention so that the evidence is of probative value in the
determination of nonobviousness. See Demaco Corp. v. F. Von
Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 7 USPQ2d 1222 (Fed.
Cir., 1988).
Here, appellants have not established a nexus between the
claimed invention and the evidence of commercial success (Oakland
declarations, Purcell declaration) or the Godfrey declaration,
which latter declaration is directed to comparing U.S. Patent
No. 4,608,918 with appellants’ patent No. 6,004,596. The
commercial success evidence is directed to the sales of
prepackaged (presumably frozen) crustless peanut butter and jelly
sandwiches of a particular type. None of appealed claims 46, 47,
53 and 54 are limited to a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
Claims 45 and 48-52
Concerning this grouping of claims, we refer to our findings
above concerning the teachings of Kaiser including the cut, seal
and crimp steps taught and suggested thereby, as well as our
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007