<p font-weight:400;font-size:38px;background-color:#ffffff;"="" style="color: rgb(59, 61, 62); font-family: 微软雅黑; font-size: 12px; white-space: normal;">Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., Case IPR2018-01129, Paper 33 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2020) (precedential)

Considering Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019), this decision determines that the challenged claims are unpatentable because the Patent Owner did not establish a nexus between the claims and ive evidence of non-obviousness. This decision determines, however, that the Patent Owner’s amended claims are patentable because the Patent Owner did establish a nexus to ive evidence of non-obviousness, including long-felt need and industry praise.

Ex parte Whirlpool Corp., Appeal 2013-008232 (Oct. 30, 2013) (informative)

This decision on appeal reverses the Examiner’s obviousness rejection, finding that the Patent Owner established a nexus between the claimed invention and its ive evidence of non-obviousness, including industry praise, commercial success, long-felt need, and copying, and that such ive evidence is sufficient to demonstrate non-obviousness of the claimed invention.

Ex parte Thompson, Appeal 2011-011620 (March 21, 2014) (informative)

This decision on appeal reverses the Examiner’s obviousness rejection, noting that assessing whether a claimed invention would have been obvious requires considering ive evidence of non-obviousness, and weighing appropriately the prior art-d evidence in conjunction with the ive evidence.