Appeal 2006-1417
Application 09/326,405
15 major orders of window systems that include the Frameless Velcro
Screen System” (emphasis added). As pointed out by the Examiner, there is
no indication what proportion of the reported figure represents the sale of
window systems in accordance with the appealed claims. Similarly,
paragraph 18 of the Declaration reports a contract in excess of $720,000 for
unspecified windows and doors, while paragraph 21 of the Declaration refers
to a contract in excess of $580,000 for “casement type windows” that is “due
in part to the aesthetic value of the Frameless Velcro Screen System”
(emphasis added). Also, while paragraph 22 of the Declaration states that
the $580,000 contract was specifically entered “because the screen was
mounted between the fixed frame and moving sash for a casement window,”
the Examiner correctly points out that the window system of Kehne has the
screen mounted between the fixed frame and the moving sash. In addition,
although paragraph 11 of the Declaration states that “conventional screen
frames with spans in excess of five feet require support members,” the
appealed claims do not recite any particular size for the screen.
The Declaration of Michael Thompson, an architect who supported a
contract in excess of $580,000 to the present assignee, is similarly flawed.
Paragraph 2 of the Declaration vaguely refers to the contract “for numerous
windows for a residence project.” Furthermore, in paragraph 7, the
Declarant states that the contract was awarded “due in part” to the window
system of the present invention. Manifestly, the Thompson Declaration, as
well as the Helzer Declaration, falls short of convincingly demonstrating the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007