Appeal No. 2000-1905
Design Application 29/095,094
In re Carletti, 328 F.2d 1020, 1022, 140 USPQ 653, 654 (CCPA
1964)). "In determining whether a design is primarily
functional or primarily ornamental the claimed design is
viewed in its entirety, for the ultimate question is not the
functional or decorative aspect of each separate feature, but
the overall appearance of the article, in determining whether
the claimed design is dictated by the utilitarian purpose of
the article." L.A. Gear, 988 F.2d at 1123, 25 USPQ2d at 1917.
As stated in Hupp v. Siroflex of America Inc.,
122 F.3d 1456, 1460-61, 43 USPQ2d 1887, 1890 (Fed. Cir. 1997):
In determining whether the statutory requirement is met
that the design is "ornamental," it is relevant whether
functional considerations demand only this particular
design or whether other designs could be used, such that
the choice of design is made for primarily aesthetic,
non-functional purposes. L.A. Gear v. Thom McAn,
988 F.2d at 1123-24, 25 USPQ2d at 1917 ("When there are
several ways to achieve the function of an article of
manufacture, the design of the article is more likely to
serve a primarily ornamental purpose."); In re Carletti,
51 C.C.P.A. 1094, 328 F.2d 1020, 1022, 140 USPQ 653, 654
(CCPA 1964) (determining whether the appearance is
"directed by" the use of the article).
As further stated in Carletti, id.: "[I]t has long been
settled that when a configuration is the result of functional
considerations only, the resulting design is not patentable as
an ornamental design for the simple reason that it is not
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007