Appeal No. 98-2069
Application No. 29/052,369
reviewing court has long held that such regulations have the 4
force and effect of law when not inconsistent with the
statutes. See Norton v. Curtiss, 433 F.2d 779, 791, 167 USPQ
532, 542 (CCPA 1970); Piel v. Falkner, 426 F.2d 412, 165 USPQ
708 (CCPA 1970); In re Rubinfield, 270 F.2d 391, 123 USPQ 210
(CCPA 1959), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 903, 124 USPQ 535 (1960);
Vandenberg v. Reynolds, 268 F.2d 744, 746, 122 USPQ 381, 382
(CCPA 1959). We are unable to find any clear conflict between
37 CFR § 1.153(a) and the applicable statutes. Title 35,
section 171 of the United States Code provides that "The
provisions of this title relating to patents for inventions
shall apply to patents for designs, except as otherwise
provided." While 35 U.S.C. § 112 states that "The
specification shall conclude with one or more claims
particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject
matter which the applicant regards as his invention," that
provision does not necessarily mean that every design
4This rulemaking authority is directed only to the
conduct of proceedings in the PTO, it does not grant the
Commissioner the authority to issue substantive rules. See
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Quigg, 932 F.2d 920, 930, 18
USPQ2d 1677, 1686 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007