Appeal No. 2000-1348
Application No. 29/092,024
are insufficiently significant to
support patentability under section
103(a) since the difference[s] between
[the] claimed design and [the] basic
reference [are] minor when considering
the overall appearance of . . .
[the claimed design] as a whole.
[Answer, page 4.]
Appellant argues that the slots in the claimed design
differ
from those of the modified Stadtmauer design such that
appellant’s slots
produce a significant visual effect that
clearly distinguish and contribute to the
distinctive appearance, as a whole, of
the . . . [claimed design]. The nested
slot arrangement stands out as a distinctive
visual feature in the design as a whole because
[appellant’s] document holder is otherwise
very simple and plain. Such a noticeable
difference cannot simply be dismissed as
slight or subtle or minor or de minimis.
[Brief, page 7.]
Appellant concludes on page 9 of the brief that “those
features” [i.e., the visual effects attributable to the slots]
convey a distinct visual impression which is novel and which
would not have been obvious to the designer of ordinary skill
who designs article of the type involved.1
1We appreciate that appellant’s design differs from that
of Stadtmauer in other respects. See, for example, the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007