Appeal No. 97-0649
Application 29/031,122
The claim reads:
The ornamental design for a SEAT as shown and described.
The references on which the final rejection is based are:2
Natuzzi Model No. 474 sofa, love seat and chair (Natuzzi 474)
Natuzzi Model No. 1030 sofa (Natuzzi 1030)
The claim stands finally rejected as unpatentable over
Natuzzi 474 in view of Natuzzi 1030, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The basis of the rejection is that (examiner’s answer,
page 3):
The article disclosed and claimed herein is
strikingly similar to the Natuzzi 474 sofa, love seat
and chair, the essential difference being in the
addition of a stitched vertical strip of trim on the
outer corners, or “shoulders”, of the backrest.
The reference to the Natuzzi 1030 sofa shows a
sofa with a similar strip of trim at the outer corners
or “shoulders” of the backrest.
Thus it is held that at the time the article was
made it would have been obvious to an ordinary worker
in the art[ ] to add the stitched vertical strip of3
trim to the outer corners of the instant article as
taught and shown by the Natuzzi 1030 sofa.
2These references consist of photographs submitted with
the CITATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. 1.97(b)” filed by appellants on
November 18, 1994. The accompanying Form PTO-1449 indicates that
the two models were at the International Home Furnishings Market
in High Point, North Carolina in November 1988 and March 1993,
respectively.
3That is, to a designer of ordinary skill who designs
articles of the type involved. In re Borden, 90 F.3d 1570, 1574,
39 USPQ2d 1524, 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007