Appeal No. 2000-1666
Application 08/754,245
this labeling problem, without any satisfactory success. See
paragraphs 3-6, 11 and 12 of the Valiulis declaration;
paragraphs 2-5 of the Harrell declaration; and paragraphs 2-4
of the Hopson, Stipanovich, and Shope declarations. In
addition, we find from the evidence submitted by appellant
that those skilled in the art of merchandising supports and
labeling for such supports have found appellant’s claimed
invention to be a solution to the labeling problem and, thus,
to satisfy the long-felt need. See paragraphs 13-26 of the
Valiulis declaration; paragraphs 6-8 of the Harrell
declaration; paragraphs 5-10 of the Hopson declaration;
paragraphs 5-7 of the Stipanovich declaration; and paragraphs
5 and 6 of the Shope declaration. In this regard, we agree
with appellant’s arguments put forth on pages 24-27 and 37-40
of the brief. More particularly, we agree with appellant
(brief, pages 38-40) that the examiner’s reasons, set forth
above, for not giving the declaration evidence adequate weight
are without foundation (factually or legally) and are
therefore unpersuasive.
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007