Appeal No. 97-2462
Application 29/031,592
The pepper mill design is depicted in front
elevational, side elevational, rear elevational, and top plan
views in Figures 1 through 4, respectively .2
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has relied
upon the following references:
David Des. 303,746 Oct. 3, 1989
(David '746)
David Des. 313,536 Jan. 8, 1991
(David '536)
Dolson 2,465,637 Mar. 29, 1949
The following rejection is before us on appeal.
The design claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over David '536 in view of David '746 and
Dolson .3
Appellant's specification sets forth that the non-illustrated2
bottom face of the pepper mill is unornamented. We take this
statement to denote that the bottom face of the pepper mill is
a plain, unornamented bottom, thereby conforming with the Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure (M.P.E.P.) § 1503.02, "A. Views".
The rejection refers to "one" of ordinary skill. More3
appropriately, in design cases, reference should be made to a
designer of ordinary skill. See In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d 1214,
1216, 211 USPQ 782, 784 (CCPA 1981).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007