Appeal No. 1995-4961
Application No. 29/014,077
PRIOR ART
In rejecting the claim, the examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Carlton 3,568,290 Mar. 9, 1971
Gagon, “Tennis Tip,” in Tennis Magazine, July, 1980, 36.
(Hereinafter referred to as “Gagon”).
“Fischer Superform Mid.,” in Tennis Magazine, July, 1980, 78.
(Hereinafter referred to as “Fischer”).
The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Gagon in view of Carlton and Fischer.
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
appellant and the examiner in support of their respective
positions, reference is made to the Brief, Reply Brief, Answer
and final Office action for the full exposition thereof.
For the reasons set forth below, we will not sustain the
rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and, pursuant to the
provision of 37 CFR § 1.196(a), we will remand this application
to the examiner for further action.
PRIOR ART REJECTION
In rejecting a claim to an ornamental design under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, the examiner has the burden of supplying a basic reference
which illustrates “design characteristics which are 'basically
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007