Appeal No. 2004-1240
Application No. 09/742,691
waste. Tanas states that “[i]n order to solve this
problem, I was forced to purchase several expensive
devices to properly dispense the foil. The systems in
addition to their cost, are bulky and take up valuable
counter space at the workstation. Earlier this year, I
tried a roll of hair foil from the Product Club. The
metal edge allows us to cut foil and to achieve the
end result we need, without the expense and
inconvenience of the system we had previously bought”.
The Benbassette Declaration contains statements
applauding the metal cutting edge of Product Club’s
dispenser that provides for cutting of foil accurately
and expeditiously and thus saves time, while
minimizing waste. Benbassette states that “[t]he
prior art product we switched from, utilized a
corrugated cutting edge that our operators found to be
too cumbersome to work with.”
The examiner’s position on each of these
declarations is set forth on page 12 of the answer.
The Declarations of Sorbie, Tanas, and
Benbassette represent the personal opinion of each
declarant. We therefore evaluate these declarations
in the same manner as we evaluated the opinion of
Scott Anders in the Anders Declaration, discussed,
supra. Each of the declarants states that they
purchased appellant’s roll foil product because of
the integrated cutting blade. Such statements are
relevant regarding whether appellant has established
21
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007