Ex Parte Falta et al - Page 11

           Appeal 2006-1708                                                                         
           Application 10/186,253                                                                   

        1        The Declarations contain only assertions that the fin design claimed in the        
        2  subject application has achieved commercial success.  This alone is insufficient to      
        3  establish the required nexus.  Claims are not technical descriptions of the disclosed    
        4  inventions but are legal documents like the descriptions of lands by metes and           
        5  bounds in a deed which define the area conveyed but do not describe the land.            
        6  Because of this characteristic of claims, the commercial success of a machine            
        7  "claimed" may be due entirely to improvements or modifications made by others to         
        8  the invention disclosed in the application for patent.  Such success is not pertinent    
        9  to the nonobviousness of the advantages inherent in what is specifically disclosed       
       10  in the application are not to be considered in determining nonobviousness.  In re        
       11  Vamco Machine & Tool, Inc., 752 F.2d 1564, 1577 n.5, 224 USPQ 617, 625 n.5               
       12  (Fed. Cir. 1985).  Furthermore, the Appellants have failed to submit any factual         
       13  evidence that would demonstrate the nexus between the sales and the claimed              
       14  invention-for example, an Affidavit from the purchaser explaining that the product       
       15  was purchased due to the claimed features.  In the present case, the sales may have      
       16  been due to lower manufacturing costs, the market position of the Appellants or the      
       17  prior relations between the other companies.  In sum, the Appellants simply have         
       18  not carried their burden to persuasively establish that a nexus existed between any      
       19  commercial success and the novel features claimed in the application.                    
       20                                                                                           
       21        Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)                                                 
       22        The third issue is whether Yamamoto discloses fin walls having a V-shape.          
       23  We find that Yamamoto discloses a heat exchanger having a series of parallel             
       24  spaced, vertically oriented, flow tubes (102) (Yamamoto, Fig. 6) having opposed          
       25  surfaces (102A) separated by a distance (Hf) (Hf is equal to c of the claimed            
       26  invention) ranging from 3 mm to 10 mm (Yamamoto, col. 4 ll. 12-15).  A                   

                                                11                                                  


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013