Ex parte H. JAY SPIEGEL - Page 2




          Appeal No. 97-1566                                                          
          Application 29/033,924                                                      


          Spiegel                  Des. 291,714             Sept. 1, 1987             
          Hornung, Handbook of Designs and Devices, Plate No. 1711 (1946)             
          p. 191.                                                                     

               The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being               
          unpatentable over Spiegel in view of Hornung.  The examiner’s               
          findings regarding the content of the references and the                    
          differences between the claimed invention and Spiegel are stated            
          as follows (examiner’s answer, page 3):                                     
               The patent to Spiegel is cited to show a kicking                       
               tee which is strikingly similar to that of the claimed                 
               design except for the difference in the shape of the                   
               outer portion.                                                         
               The reference to Handbook of Design and Devices                        
               (Figure 1711) is cited to show a shield shape which is                 
               substantially similar in overall appearance to the                     
               shape of the outer portion of the claimed design.                      
          The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to                   
          substitute the shield shape of Figure 1711 for the outer shape of           
          Spiegel, and further that “by simply modifying the outer shape,             
          since the interior portions of the kicking tee [of Spiegel and              
          the claimed design] are almost identical, said modification would           
          produce and [sic, an] article strikingly similar in appearance to           
          that of the claimed design” (examiner’s answer, page 3).                    
               In the “Response to argument” section of the answer, the               
          examiner offers additional views regarding the combinability of             
          the references.  Specifically, the examiner states that “as long            
                                         -2-                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007