Ex Parte 6379190 et al - Page 27

                Appeal 2007-2577                                                                             
                Application 90/006,344                                                                       
                case of obviousness.72  For instance, in Graham, the court was decidedly                     
                underwhelmed by the secondary considerations in view of the very close                       
                prior art:73                                                                                 
                      However, these factors do not, in the circumstances of this case,                      
                      tip the scales of patentability. The Scoggin invention, as limited                     
                      by the Patent Office and accepted by Scoggin, rests upon                               
                      exceedingly small and quite non-technical mechanical                                   
                      differences in a device which was old in the art. At the latest,                       
                      those differences were rendered apparent in 1953 by the                                
                      appearance of the Livingstone patent, and unsuccessful attempts                        
                      to reach a solution to the problems confronting Scoggin made                           
                      before that time became wholly irrelevant. It is also irrelevant                       
                      that no one apparently chose to avail himself of knowledge                             
                      stored in the Patent Office and readily available by the simple                        
                      expedient of conducting a patent search-a prudent and                                  
                      nowadays common preliminary to well organized research.                                

                Moreover, in an ex parte process, the burden of showing with hard evidence                   
                a nexus between commercial success and the claimed invention lies with the                   
                applicant (or in this case, patentee).74  Unlike a party in an invalidity action,            
                the examiner has little ability to develop independent objective evidence                    
                supporting or refuting a claim of commercial success.                                        
                      Prazoff offers in evidence two declarations from himself.  The                         
                examiner raised three objections to the declaration evidence.75  The first two               
                are a quibble about whether or not all rope-light sales in the United States                 
                                                                                                            
                72 Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1372, 82 USPQ2d 1321, 1338                   
                (Fed. Cir. 2007); Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 768,                         
                9 USPQ2d 1417, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1988).                                                        
                73 Graham, 383 U.S. at 36.                                                                   
                74 In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-140, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir.                       
                1996); Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1482, 31 USPQ2d at 1676 (reexamination).                          
                75 Acknowledgement of Reply Brief 4 (entered 29 Sept. 2006).                                 

                                                     27                                                      

Page:  Previous  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013