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 16Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007