Appeal No. 2001-0466
Application No. 29/112,628
The examiner has not required restriction of the design
application to one of the two embodiments. Instead, the
examiner considers the two embodiments to present overall
appearances that are not distinct from one another and thus
comprise a single inventive concept. Accordingly, both
embodiments have been retained in the application (Paper No.
5, page 2).
The examiner's rejection as set forth on pages 2 and 3 of
the answer is as follows:
The overall visual impression conveyed by the
instant frame is held to be similar to Burnes of
Boston #5552, the essential difference being the
proportions of the mat versus picture area.
Exposures shows similar proportions of the mat
versus picture area.
Thus it is held that it would have been obvious
to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
the article was made to modify Burnes of Boston
#5552 as taught by Exposures.
Moreover, the result would be an appearance over
which the claimed article possesses no patentable
difference.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007