Appeal No. 96-3568
Application 29/009,122
Saito D-269,611 July 5, 1983
The appealed design claim stands rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by Saito.
According to the examiner (answer, page 3), the claimed
design's gentle convex curves at the front and rear, versus the
prior art's sharp cut-offs at the front and rear, are not
believed to be different enough to make them patentably distinct
from each other. The examiner goes on to indicate that the
differences are deemed to be minor in terms of the overall
configuration of the claimed design and concludes that such minor
variations are not sufficient to distinguish the overall
appearance of appellant's design over the prior art.
Reference is made to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 9, mailed December 13, 1995) for the examiner's full
reasoning in support of the above-noted rejection. Attention is
directed to appellant's brief (Paper No. 6, filed April 27,
1995) for an exposition of appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007