REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1628 Ex Parte Hochberg 10676287 - (D) POLLOCK 103 Henry D. Coleman BADIO, BARBARA P
Although “evidence of unexpected results and other secondary considerations will not necessarily overcome a strong prima facie showing of obviousness” (Süd-Chemie, Inc. v. Multisorb Technologies, Inc., 554 F.3d 1001, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2009)), in the present case, we find that Appellant’s evidence of unexpected results, weighs in favor of nonobviousness by a preponderance of the evidence. ...
Although we find Appellant’s evidence of unexpected results persuasive, our analysis does not end here because “‘objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.” In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035 (CCPA 1980).
Clemens, In re, 622 F.2d 1029, 206 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1980) 716.02(d) , 2145
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Surwit et al 12793029 - (D) FETTING 103 102 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC GILLIGAN, CHRISTOPHER L
No comments :
Post a Comment