Opinion ID: 3179244
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Objective Considerations

Text: Although the Board found that certain objective considerations pointed towards non-obviousness, it concluded that Corning’s strong evidence of obviousness outweighed these considerations. On appeal, the parties dispute the Board’s findings with respect to the various indicia of nonobviousness, including long-felt but unresolved need, failed attempts by Corning, copying by Corning, and commercial success, as well as the overall weight given by the Board to these indicia. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusions on long-felt but unresolved need, failed attempts, and copying. The Board rejected PPC Broadband’s argument that there was a long-felt but unsolved need for coaxial cable connectors where ground continuity could be established even if the connector was only loosely connected to the port. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings that this long-felt need had been satisfied by earlier connectors invented before the priority date of the patents at issue here. Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s finding that Corning had both successful and unsuccessful attempts to design a prototype coaxial cable with a continuity member, but that none of these success- 18 PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMC’NS ful designs were manufactured or sold to consumers. In light of Corning’s failure to manufacture connectors with a continuity member that could be sold to consumers, this factor weighs in favor of a finding of non-obviousness. Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s conclusion that there was copying by Corning. This too weighs in favor of non-obviousness. Lastly, the Board found that PPC Broadband had not presented persuasive evidence of commercial success. In coming to this conclusion, the Board found that PPC Broadband had not established that its SignalTight connectors met all of the elements of the challenged claims at issue. Here, the Board erred. PPC Broadband alleges that its SignalTight connectors are commercial embodiments of the connectors recited in the claims. PPC Broadband presented multiple declarations supporting this allegation. Corning did not argue to the Board that the SignalTight connectors are not commercial embodiments of the claimed connectors. When the patentee has presented undisputed evidence that its product is the invention disclosed in the challenged claims, it is error for the Board to find to the contrary without further explanation. There was no such explanation here. The Board in its opinions did not explain why the SignalTight connectors fail to embody the claimed features, or what claimed features in particular are missing from the SignalTight connectors. 3 Nor does Corning justify this finding on 3 Without any detailed explanation, the Board also noted that commercial success is not established where a product has a very large market share if that product was replacing the same party’s earlier version which likewise enjoyed a high market share. We note that it would be wrong to conclude that a product with a high market share is not commercially successful solely because it is PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMC’NS 19 appeal. Substantial evidence does not support the Board’s finding on this point. Because the evidence shows that the SignalTight connectors are “the invention disclosed and claimed in the patent,” we presume that any commercial success of these products is due to the patented invention. J.T. Eaton & Co. v. Atl. Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997). This is true even when the product has additional, unclaimed features. See, e.g., Ecolochem, Inc. v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 227 F.3d 1361, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (applying presumption even through commercial embodiment had unclaimed mobility feature); Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding that evidence that commercial success was due to unclaimed or non-novel features of device “clearly rebuts the presumption that [the product’s] success was due to the claimed and novel features”). This presumption does not apply in the ex parte context, where the PTO cannot gather evidence supporting or refuting the patentee’s evidence of commercial success. See, e.g., In re DBC, 545 F.3d 1373, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2008); In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139–40 (Fed. Cir. 1996). It does, however, apply in contested proceedings such as IPRs, where the petitioner has the means to rebut the patentee’s evidence. We leave to the Board the commercial success fact findings in the first instance under the correct claim construction.