Appeal No. 98-2946
Application 08/291,596
or other metal, tips for the boards, but these other
attempts have not effectively solved the problem and
most manufacturers no longer use metal tips. The
metal tips add undesired weight to the board, and
simply don’t adequately protect the nose if the
snowboard runs into certain objects.
Considering appellant’s evidence as a whole, we do not
view it as sufficient to show commercial success of the
invention. Assuming there to be a nexus between the sales
reported in paragraph 6 of appellant’s declaration, supra, and
the invention, “evidence related solely to the number of units
sold provides a very weak showing of commercial success, if
any.” In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 137, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689
(Fed. Cir. 1996). However, considering the evidence of sales
in conjunction with the other evidence discussed above, we
conclude that appellant has established that the claimed
invention filled a long-felt need in the snowboard field.
Evaluating the evidence in light of the factors considered by
the court in Radix Corp. v. Samuels, 13 USPQ2d 1689, 1695
(D.D.C. 1989), appellant has shown (1) there was a need for a
solution to the delamination problem since snowboards were
first sold in the United States from at least 1978; (2) the
attempts of others to solve the problem, by using metal plates
and/or rivets, did not effectively solve the problem; (3) all
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007