Ex parte LEIGHT - Page 3




          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