Appeal No. 97-2440
Application 29/036,036
in the stem" and that this "modification would meet the overall
appearance of the claimed design" (answer, page 3) constitute
impermissible hindsight. There is absolutely no evidence of
record, other than appellant's own teaching, as to why the
skilled designer of pipe fitting cleaner brushes would have been
led to modify Lawrence's design by untwisting the stem beginning
below the bristles in order to create a contrasting appearance in
the stem.
The examiner's observation that column 2, line 39 of
Lawrence suggests that the stem may constitute a single rod
rather than a twisted portion is unpersuasive since Lawrence does
not show such an alternative embodiment and it is not clear what
the design of such an embodiment would look like. As we read
that section of Lawrence, the alternative embodiment would
constitute a straight rod from the top of the hexagonal base to
the brush section with a twisted wire portion forming no part
thereof. Therefore, even this disclosed alternative embodiment
of Lawrence would fail to show or suggest the overall design of
the instant invention including a straight portion intermediate
the top of the hexagonal base portion and the twisted wire
portion leading to the brush section.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007