Appeal No. 97-2547
Application 07/949,042
and arguments on which appellant will rely to maintain the
appeal. Any arguments or authorities not included in the
brief will be refused consideration by the Board”).
Moreover, even if the Krupotich declaration had been
argued, it would be entitled to little, if any, probative
value as evidence of non-obviousness. The sales figures
discussed in the declaration (see paragraph 18) are somewhat
ambiguous and have not been placed in any meaningful context.
Bald sales figures such as these constitute minimal evidence
of commercial success. See In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 137, 40
USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Cable Elec. Prods. Inc. v.
Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1026-27, 226 USPQ 881, 887-88
(Fed. Cir. 1985). The declaration is also lacking on the
issue of commercial success in that it fails to establish that
the alleged sales were a direct result of the unique
characteristics of the claimed invention, as opposed to other
economic and commercial factors unrelated to the quality of
the claimed subject matter. Id. Finally and as pointed out
in footnote 5 on page 10 of our earlier decision (Paper No.
20), the exhibits accompanying the declaration do not include
the one relied upon to establish copying (see declaration
-12-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007