Appeal No. 1996-3918
Application No. 08/232,351
supporting facts. See In re Brandstadter, supra, In re
Thompson, supra, and In re DeBlauwe, supra.
The appellant's self-executed declaration sets forth
various problems of the prior art backboards and notes various
differences between White and the appellant's "invention," and
thereafter states that the invention "satisfies the needs of
the institutional market." Apparently, the appellant believes
that this evidence establishes long-felt need. However, to
establish long-felt need, evidence must be presented which
demonstrates the existence of a problem which was of concern
in the industry and has remained unsolved over a long period
of time. See Vandenberg v. Dairy Equipment Co., 740 F.2d
1560, 1567, 224 USPQ 195, 199 (Fed. Cir. 1984). This can be
accomplished, for example, by the testimony of experts in the
industry, or publications or the like, which speak to the
duration and extent of the problem, and of the substantial
effort and resources which had been expended during that time
in attempts to solve the problem. See Railroad Dynamics, Inc.
v. Stuki Co. 579 F. Supp. 353, 218 USPQ 618, 628 (E.D. Pa.
1983), aff'd 727 F.2d 1506, 220 USPQ 929 (Fed. Cir. 1984),
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007