Appeal No. 97-2581
Application 29/031,665
Even if we were to agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious to modify the
lid of Ferrero in view of the teachings of Lampe and Rymoen in the manner proposed, we do not
believe that the overall appearance of the appellant’s design is suggested. The examiner
recognizes that there is nothing in the combined teachings of the relied on prior art which would
have fairly suggested the inverted dome depression which the appellants argue is a patentably
distinguishing feature, but nevertheless seeks to dismiss such a difference as “minor.” We do not
agree.
As the court in In re Blum, 374 F.2d 904, 907, 153 USPQ, 177, 179-180 (CCPA 1967)
stated
there are no portions of a design which are “immaterial” or “not important.” A
design is a unitary thing and all of its portions are material in that they contribute
to the appearance which constitutes the design.
The appearance may be the result of a peculiarity of configuration, or of ornamentation, or of
both. See Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 511, 525 (1872) and In re Schnell, 46
F.2d 203, 209, 8 USPQ 19, 25 (CCPA 1931).
Here, as the appellant has argued, the claimed design includes a relatively shallow
depression in the form of a cylindrical wall terminating in an inverted dome; and this inverted
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007