Appeal No. 97-0649
Application 29/031,122
Moreover, the result would be an appearance over
which the claimed seat possesses no patentable
difference.
The examiner further states that rounding the corners of the
shoulder area “is not a patentable distinction but an obvious
expedient,” citing In re Peet, 211 F.2d 602, 603, 101 USPQ 203,
204 (CCPA 1954), and noting rounded corners or shoulders on the
Natuzzi 1030 sofa.
Appellants argue that Natuzzi 474 does not have design
characteristics which are basically the same as the claimed
design (i.e., is not a so-called “Rosen reference”) citing In re4
Harvey, 12 F.3d 1061, 1063, 29 USPQ2D 1206, 1208 (Fed. Cir.
1993). They contend, for reasons stated on pages 3-5 of their
brief, that the claimed design presents a “rectilinear” or
“upright” overall frontal appearance, while the Natuzzi 474
sofa’s appearance is more “open.” Contributing to this
difference in appearance, appellants assert, is the difference in
arrangement of the two seam lines at each end of the backrest
cushions of the claimed and reference designs. The examiner does
not agree.
After fully considering the record in light of the arguments
presented in appellants’ brief and the examiner’s answer, we find
4 In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388, 391, 213 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA
1982).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007