Appeal No. 97-2491
Application 08/514,010
Appellants’ evidence of nonobviousness attempts to establish that Insta-Foam Products, Inc.
(the assignee of Willden) intentionally copied the device which is the subject of the present application.
In this regard, Abraham N. Reichental states in his declaration that “the ProPacker [apparatus of Insta-
Foam Products, Inc.] is essentially an identical copy of Sealed Air’s VERSAPACKER™ device which
is the subject of this pending patent application” (paragraph 11), that in declarant’s opinion “the
ProPacker illustrated in Exhibit B is more than a literal copy of the VERSAPACKER™ device and
indeed is actually built from Sealed Air parts” (paragraph 12), and that “it is inconceivable that a
person, even one skilled in the art, would independently come up with identical parts for the feeding,
cutting and sealing . . . of the plastic film in a foam-in-bag packaging device” (paragraph 13).
Reichental than lists in paragraph 15 nine specific details “claimed and disclosed in the pending
application that identically appear on Insta-Foam’s ProPacker.” Reichental continues that “Insta-Foam
. . . has abandoned the technology illustrated in the Willden patent and instead has offered the identical
(and indeed possibly pirated) copy of Sealed Air’s VERSAPACKER™ device” (paragraph 16), that
Insta-Foam’s “identical copying of the invention . . . which is the subject of the specification, claims and
drawings of the above application demonstrates that the disclosure and claims are nonobvious”
(paragraph 17), and that “Insta-Foam’s abandonment of their own patented technology in favor of a
direct copy of Sealed Air’s disclosed and claimed technology demonstrates the commercial success
and nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter in the pending application” (paragraph 18).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007