Opinion ID: 700391
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Factual Determinations Under Graham

Text: 18 We next review the district court's findings on the factual inquiries required by Graham, 383 U.S. at 17, 148 USPQ at 467. Included are 1) the scope and content of the prior art, 2) the differences between prior art and the claimed invention, 3) the level of ordinary skill in the art, and 4) secondary considerations. Id. We review these findings under the clearly erroneous standard. 19
20 In connection with the scope and content of the prior art, the district court found the Thomas references to be nonanalogous art, that is, too remote to be considered relevant prior art. We disagree. A reference is analogous art if it is within the inventor's field of endeavor. If the court finds the reference to be outside this field, the court must determine whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem facing the inventor. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1992). 21 The district court found, based on its erroneous claim construction, that the inventor's field of endeavor was outdoor quartz halogen floodlights. As discussed above, the claimed subject matter is not limited to outdoor quartz halogen lights; therefore, this finding is clearly erroneous considering the scope of the appealed claims. The claimed invention, not illustrative embodiments, is the focus of the obviousness inquiry. Additionally, the district court failed to appreciate the examiner's reliance on the Chudler patent, an indoor fluorescent lighting fixture, as relevant prior art. The Thomas references are within the inventor's field of endeavor, in view of what is claimed, and are accordingly relevant prior art. The Thomas references are therefore relevant to the consideration of obviousness under Sec. 103 and are not nonanalogous. 22 The district court found that the particular problem facing the inventor was to produce such a light at a reduced cost and size. Because we conclude that the Thomas references are within the inventor's field of endeavor, we need not determine whether they are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem the inventor faced. We note, however, that, in light of proper claim construction, the problem facing the inventor was attaching a frameless lens to a housing of a light fixture using spring-clips, whether for indoor or outdoor use, whether quartz halogen or another type, and whether the lens is glass or plastic. Lens attaching means is exactly what the Thomas references disclose. 23
24 The district court did not specifically address differences between the prior art and the claimed invention because the district court did not consider the Thomas references relevant. It is settled, however, that [w]hen the prior art is compared with erroneously interpreted claims, [as here,] findings of differences between the prior art and the claims will necessarily be clearly erroneous. Panduit 810 F.2d at 1576, 1 USPQ2d at 1603. 25
26 The parties stipulated that one having ordinary skill in the art is one with a bachelors degree and two to three years of design or engineering experience in the art, or if no bachelors degree, then three to six years of design experience in the art. There is no dispute on this point. 27
28 We next consider objective evidence of nonobviousness, the so-called secondary considerations as set out in Graham. The district court considered one factor, commercial success; it did so however without finding the required nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the commercial success. The opinions of this court hold that evidence on secondary considerations is always to be taken into account. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1539, 218 USPQ 871, 879 (Fed. Cir. 1983). If that evidence is to be given substantial weight en route to an obviousness decision, however, a nexus is required between the merits of the claimed invention and the evidence offered. Id. Objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 218 USPQ 769 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Here, a nexus was not established because the claims, properly construed, are not commensurate in scope with the offered evidence. Rather, the evidence embraces only outdoor quartz halogen fixtures with glass lenses, yet the claimed subject matter as a whole is broader, as discussed above. Accordingly, this evidence should not be afforded substantial weight in the obviousness determination. 29 In sum, the district court's error in claim construction has permeated the court's findings, leading it to reach clearly erroneous conclusions regarding the Graham factors.