Ex parte BALDWIN - Page 16




          Appeal No. 1999-2243                                                        
          Application 08/567,081                                                      



                    The declaration is to the effect that after                       
          marketing of the change cart disclosed in the application                   
          began, (1) "a number of other casino change carts appeared in               
          the market which I believe were inspired by the design of the               
          subject application" (two examples of such other change carts               
          are shown in Exhibits A and B), and (2) 292 of the previous                 
          carts, without the centrally located large wheels, were sold                
          between September 27, 1992, and October 6, 1995, while 803 of               
          the new carts, with the centrally located large wheels, were                
          sold between October 6, 1995 and                                            




          November 16, 1997.  This evidence is insufficient as a                      
          rebuttal of prima facie obviousness because, first, mere                    
          copying is not                                                              
          enough, without any evidence to explain the motivation behind               
          the                                                                         
          alleged copying.  Dotolo v. Quigg, 12 USPQ2d 1032, 1038                     
          (D.D.C. 1989).  See also In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1580,               
          35 USPQ2d 1116, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1995).  Second, "evidence                   

                                          16                                          





Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007