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