Appeal No. 2000-2183
Application No. 29/082,343
band is smooth.[ ]1
Vance discloses a shower cap having, in its “small mode”
(Fig. 4), an upper crown 14 with a band 12 at the bottom. The
examiner states the basis of the rejection on pages 4 and 5 of
the answer as follows:
Vance discloses a shower cap with a headband and a
crown portion like that of the claimed design. The
differences to [sic: from] that of the claimed
design are the shape or fullness of the crown and
the smooth band. Adkins teaches the shape or
fullness of the crown. Owen discloses a smooth band
to be old in the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to modify Vance by providing it with a shape or
fullness of the crown as taught by Adkins and the
smooth band as taught by Owen to obtain essentially
the herein disclosed and claimed design.
In response to appellant’s argument that the smooth band of
Owen
is thin, not wide, the examiner states at page 6 of the
answer:
The difference in the width of the band is seen to
be minor to the overall appearance, which is not
suffi-cient to support unobviousness[.] In re
Cooper[, 480 F.2d 900,] 178 USPQ 406 [(CCPA 1973)].
The wide, smooth band of appellant’s claimed design is shown in Figs.1
1, 2 and 4. Fig. 5 further illustrates the smoothness of the surface of the
band.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007