Objective evidence of non-obviousness “must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.”
Background / Facts: The patents here relate to custom-made “dispenser assemblies,” i.e., spray pumps with an attached dip tube, for dispensing fragrances. The patentee developed an “invisible” dip tube for perfumes that appears to disappear when immersed in liquid, enhancing the aesthetic appearance of the perfume bottle. Certain claims, however, are directed more generally to the broad spectrum of “dispenser assembl[ies] for dispensing a liquid.” The district court nevertheless credited evidence advanced to show long-felt need and commercial success specific to the perfume industry.
Issue(s): Whether the objective evidence of non-obviousness specific to the perfume industry is sufficient to establish a nexus between the cited industry praise and the broader claim language at issue.
Holding(s): No. “The central problem with the district court’s analysis is that it fails to treat claims 15 and 19, which are not limited to fragrance products, differently from the asserted fragrance-specific claims. … The district court’s analysis of the secondary considerations of nonobviousness involved only fragrance-specific uses, but the claims now at issue are not fragrance-specific, and ‘objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.’”