Ex Parte 5253341 et al - Page 26




               Reexamination Control No. 90/005,742                                                                                   
               Patent 5,253,341                                                                                                       

          1            Licenses taken under the patent in suit may constitute evidence of                                             
          2            nonobviousness; however, only little weight can be attributed to such                                          
          3            evidence if the patentee does not demonstrate “a nexus between the merits                                      
          4            of the invention and the licenses of record.”  Stratoflex [Inc. v.  Aeroquip                                   
          5            Corp.], 713 F.2d [1530,] 1539, 218 USPQ [871,] 879 [(Fed. Cir.  1983)];                                        
          6            see Demaco [Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd.], 851 F.2d                                               
          7            [1387,] 1392, 7 USPQ2d [1222,] 1226 [(Fed. Cir.  1988)].                                                       
          8                                                                                                                           
          9    The GPAC court held that "[b]ecause, in affidavits reciting the licensing history of the ‘111                          
         10    patent, GPAC did not establish which claim(s) of the patent the licensing program incorporates,                        
         11    GPAC has not shown that licensing of Natale's invention arose out of recognition and acceptance                        
         12    of the subject matter claimed in the ‘111 patent."   GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1580, 35 USPQ2d at 1122.                         
         13    Furthermore,                                                                                                           
         14            affirmative evidence of nexus [is required] where the evidence of                                              
         15            commercial success presented is a license, because it is often “cheaper to                                     
         16            take licenses than to defend infringement suits.”  EWP Corp. v. Reliance                                       
         17            Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 908 [225 USPQ 20, 26] (Fed. Cir. 1985).                                          
         18            . . . Without a showing of nexus, “the mere existence of . . . licenses is                                     
         19            insufficient to overcome the conclusion of obviousness” when there is a                                        
         20            strong prima facie case of obviousness.    SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc. v.                                        
         21            Cadus Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1349, 1358 [55 USPQ2d 1927, 1933] (Fed.                                           
         22            Cir. 2000).                                                                                                    
         23                                                                                                                           
         24    Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1324, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1230 (Fed.                             
         25    Cir. 2004).                                                                                                            
         26            The Brown declaration falls short of demonstrating the required nexus in several                               
         27    respects.                                                                                                              
         28    First, it fails to establish that the licensing agreements are specifically directed to the subject                    
         29    matter recited in any of the claims currently rejected for obviousness.  All of the independent                        
         30    claims of the '341 patent (i.e., claims 1-3 and 7) were cancelled by appellant in response to the                      
                                                            - 26 -                                                                    





Page:  Previous  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007