Appeal No. 1999-0266 Page 8
Application No. 08/290,678
sections. Since the support belt does not appear to include
any feature distinguishing it from conventional support belts
other than the claimed reduced side sections, it seems evident
that the claimed invention was the reason for the commercial
success and copying of the invention set forth in the second
declaration of John Schiek, in other words, that there was a
nexus between the claimed invention and the commercial success
and copying of the appellant's support belt.
Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence of secondary
considerations submitted by the appellant is sufficient to
overcome the prima facie case of obviousness as to the claimed
subject matter. Rejections (1) and (2) will therefore not be
sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007