Appeal No. 2006-2074
Application No. 10/158,197
Finally turning to the evidence of copying, which is presented in
paragraphs 21 through 24 of the declaration and paragraphs 8 through 11 of
the supplemental declaration. Mr. Fedor describes three instances of
copying. The first discussed is, the “Farberware Pro Forged” depicted in
Exhibit F, which Mr. Fedor identifies as being introduced for sale in August
2003. See declaration, paragraph 22. The second discussed is the
“Professional Gourmet Cutlery,” depicted in Exhibit G, sold by Tools of The
Trade which Mr. Fedor identifies as being introduced for sale in October,
2003. See declaration, paragraph 23. The third discussed is a set sold by The
Great Indoors, depicted in Exhibit H, which Mr. Fedor identifies as being
introduced for sale in June 2004. See declaration, paragraph 24. Mr. Fedor,
in paragraph 11 of the supplemental declaration, states: “ I am very
confident that the similarities in design of the Great Indoors set and the
Contemporary line, including the marking on the butt end of the knives,
resulted from copying of the invention claimed in the ‘197 application. In
fact the set shown in Exhibit H was manufactured, without Calphalon’s
authority, by the very same supplier that manufactures [Calphalon’s]
Contemporary products.”
We note that the initial sales dates of the competitors’ knives shown in
Exhibits F through H, are after the initial sales data of the “Contemporary”
knives. Further, in response to the examiner suggestion that the
manufacturers of the knives shown in Exhibits F through H may have been
copying Sanelli’s device, we find no evidence to support such speculation.
the data shows sales data points until August 2003. Accordingly, we base our
conclusions upon the statements and underlying data submitted as Exhibit C.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007