Objective evidence of nonobviousness need only be “reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claims.” There is no requirement that an applicant or patentee produce objective evidence of nonobviousness for every potential embodiment of the claim.
Background / Facts: This case relates to memory circuits known as dynamic random-access memory (DRAM). In conventional synchronous memory systems, the data transmitted to the memory ties up the system for a full cycle of the clock signal. In contrast, the patent claims what Rambus refers to as “dual-edge / double-data-rate” functionality because the system transfers data at twice the normal rate by employing both the rising and falling edges of the clock signal. Despite widespread industry praise for this advancement, the PTO found that a prima facie case of obvious in view of the prior art was not overcome because the industry praise lacked a nexus to the broad claim language at issue.
Issue(s): Whether Rambus’s objective evidence of nonobviousness lacked a nexus for failing to be commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Holding(s): No. “The Board also erroneously found that Rambus’s evidence relating to high-speed memory systems was not commensurate with the scope of the claims because the claims ‘do not recite a specific clock speed and therefore embrace slow memory devices.’ … Such a strict requirement was improper. Objective evidence of nonobviousness need only be ‘reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claims,’ and we do not require a patentee to produce objective evidence of nonobviousness for every potential embodiment of the claim. … Rambus’s evidence shows beyond dispute that the claimed dual-edge data transfer functionality is what enabled the praised high-speed transfer of data.”