Appeal No. 1996-3918
Application No. 08/232,351
145, 144 USPQ 495, 497 (CCPA 1965) and In re Vamco Machine and
Tool, Inc., 752 F.2d 1564, 1574-75, 224 USPQ 617, 623 (Fed.
Cir. l985)), and an expert's opinion on the legal conclusion
of obviousness is neither necessary nor controlling (see Avia
Group Int’l, Inc. v. L.A. Gear Cal.,Inc., 853 F.2d 1557, 1564,
7 USPQ2d 1548, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
The declaration by Maier establishes that the declarant
was the national sales manager for Porter Athletic Equipment
Company and states that the attached chart shows sales figures
of the "old style" backboard units vis-à-vis "our current
single support direct mount basketball backboard system
(described in . . . attached U.S. Patent No. 5[,]279,496 - the
parent of the instant application)." This evidence, however,
does not establish the required nexus between the sales
figures for the "NEW STYLE" goal mount system and the claimed
invention. See Stratoflex Inc. v. Aeroquip corp., supra, 713
F.2d 1530, 1539, 218 USPQ 871, 879 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and Cable
Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1026-
27, 226 USPQ 881, 887-88 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also Sjolund
v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1582, 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2028 (Fed.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007