Appeal No. 2005-2174
Application No. 10/060,614
Finally, the declarant’s opinions as to the legal and factual issues raised during
the prosecution of Application Nos. 08/406,752 and 08/058,197 have little, if any,
relevance to the issues of obviousness presented in the instant case.
The Reynolds II declaration updates the Reynolds I declaration by asserting that
the Impulse 220 had gross revenues of “$841,275.00” for the first five months of 1997,
that orders already received will bring the gross revenues for calendar year 1997 to
“$1,549,288.00,” that expected additional orders would bring the year’s total to “$2.5
million” and that total gross revenues for the Impulse 220 will be “$5.1 million.” These
bald sales figures suffer the same defects as those presented in the Reynolds I
declaration.
The Roumpos and Gibson declarations make broad and sweeping assertions of
commercial success for the Impulse 220 that purportedly stem from its combination of
deflectability and illumination, but fail to provide any corroborating evidence for such
assertions.
The Roumpos, Morin and Porter declarations praise the Impulse 220 due to
features which allow it to fit easily into shelf channels, provide high visibility to
customers from both ends of an aisle, permit deflection out of the way when struck by a
customer or shopping cart to prevent damage and injury, allow easy relocation and
variation of content, provide a lighted billboard effect and embody a self-contained
power source. To the extent that these features are recited in the appealed claims,
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007