Ex parte LEIGHT - Page 5

          Appeal No. 96-3568                                                          
          Application 29/009,122                                                      

                    observer takes the new design for a                               
                    different, and not a modified already-                            
                    existing, design.                                                 
          It therefore follows that, in order to establish lack of novelty            
          (i.e., anticipation), the ordinary observer must take the general           

          or ensemble appearance-effect of the design under consideration             
          to be the same as that of an already-existing design (even though           
          a degree of difference may actually be present).                            

                    In the present case, for the reasons aptly expressed by           
          appellant on pages 3-4 of the brief, we do not agree with the               
          examiner that the differences between the claimed design and the            
          cap seen in Saito involve merely minor variations which are                 
          insufficient to distinguish the overall appearance of the claimed           
          design from that of the prior art cap of Saito.  Stated                     
          differently, and in accordance with the test for novelty in                 
          designs, we are of the opinion that the ordinary observer would             
          view the general or ensemble appearance-effect of the claimed               
          design to  be different from that of the cap seen in Saito.                 


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007