Appeal No. 1998-0187
Application No. 08/247,518
25, 1996, at ¶ 9, refers to “. . . the cost saving benefits to
be derived from permitting use of less skilled workers . . .”
(emphasis supplied).
We have a number of problems with this evidence. First,
each declaration simply expresses the declarant’s opinion that
ceramic cups made on a commercial scale by the process defined
in appealed claim 8 would be less expensive to mass produce
than such cups produced by conventional methods. The opinions
are not supported by any factual evidence or data
demonstrating actual cost savings with the appellant’s claimed
method over conventional methods. Affidavits and declarations
fail in their purpose when they recite conclusions with few
facts to buttress the conclusions. See In re Brandstadter,
484 F.2d 1395, 1406, 179 USPQ 286, 294 (CCPA 1973); In re
Thompson, 545 F.2d 1290, 1295, 192 USPQ 275, 277-78 (CCPA
1976).
Second, the appellant has not established that the
objective evidence of nonobviousness is commensurate in scope
with the claimed invention. In other words, the showing of
unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007