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                                                     
                              As the court in In re Blum, 374 F.2d 904, 907, 153 USPQ, 177, 179-180 (CCPA 1967)                                                            
                              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                                                        


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007