Appeal No. 2005-0127 Page 6
Application No. 10/077,427
evidence that the sales were due to the unique characteristics of the product as claimed. Both
significant success and a nexus between the unique characteristics of the weather stripping and
the sales are required for the evidence to be sufficiently probative as an indicia of non-
obviousness. See In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689-90 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
“When a patentee offers objective evidence of nonobviousness, there must be a sufficient
relationship between that evidence and the patented invention.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1482, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1676 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “The term ‘nexus’ is used, in this context, to
designate a legally and factually sufficient connection between the proven success and the
patented invention, such that the objective evidence should be considered in the determination of
nonobviousness. The burden of proof as to this connection or nexus resides with the patentee.”
Id.(quoting Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392, 7 USPQ2d
1222, 1226 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 956, 109 S.Ct. 395, 102 L.Ed.2d 383 (1988)).
Having considered all the evidence of record, we determine that the evidence of
obviousness, on balance, outweighs the evidence of non-obviousness. Hence, we conclude that
the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-7 and 15-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007