Appeal 2006-1708
Application 10/186,253
1 Commercial Success
2 The Appellants attest nonobviousness in the form of commercial success in
3 the Affidavit of Mohinder S. Bhatti. Mr. Bhatti states the disclosed design
4 achieved great commercial success in the form of sales in a relatively short time,
5 and that the success is directly attributable to the particular fin geometry (Bhatti
6 Decl. ¶ 19). Bhatti states the new fin design eliminated the need for a metal screen
7 that had previously been used to block water. Bhatti states that a presentation to
8 General Motors was made in May 2000 and that by October 2000, General Motors
9 went into production of the evaporator with the new fin design and that this rapid
10 implementation is telling proof of commercial success (Bhatti Decl. ¶ 22). In
11 addition, Bhatti attests that there was an addition of a new customer, Nummi and
12 that TRIPAC International Inc. wishes to license the technology for use in future
13 Australian (Bhatti Decl. ¶ 22).
14 We do not find that the Declaration persuasively establishes commercial
15 success of the claimed invention. In that regard, the Declaration provides no data
16 concerning whether the amount of sales of the evaporators with the claimed fin
17 design represents a substantial share in this market. On the basis of the limited
18 information provided by the Declarant, we conclude that the Appellants have failed
19 to persuasively establish commercial success.
20 Even assuming that the Appellants had sufficiently demonstrated
21 commercial success, that success is relevant in the obviousness context only if it is
22 established that the sales were a direct result of the unique characteristics of the
23 claimed invention, as opposed to other economic and commercial factors unrelated
24 to the quality of the claimed subject matter. See Cable Elec., 770 F.2d at 1027,
25 226 USPQ at 888.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013