Ex parte CREDLE - Page 2




          Appeal No. 98-3079                                                          
          Application No. 29/052,635                                                  


               This is an appeal from the final rejection of the                      
          following design claim:                                                     
               The ornamental design for a building block drink                       
               container as shown and described.                                      
               The several embodiments of this design have been depicted              
          in some forty views, with Figures 57 through 63 being the most              
          representative when evaluating the examiner’s rejection.                    
                                   THE REFERENCES                                     
               The references applied by the examiner are:                            
          Loofbourrow et al. (Loofbourrow)   4,656,840           Apr. 14,             
          1987                                                                        
          McLaughlin et al. (McLaughlin)     D-301,260           May  23,             
          1989                                                                        
          Zutler                             D-333,978           Mar. 16,             
          1993                                                                        
                                    THE REJECTION                                     
               The design claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as              
          being unpatentable over Zutler in view of Loofbourrow and                   
          McLaughlin.                                                                 
               The rejection is explained in Paper No. 8, the final                   
          rejection.                                                                  
               The opposing viewpoints of the appellant are set forth in              
          the Brief.                                                                  
                                       OPINION                                        
                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007