Appeal No. 97-2900
Application No. 29/039,134
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a design for a pellet.
The claim on appeal is:
The ornamental design for a pellet for tossing at weddings as
shown and described.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is:
Grodberg et al. 3,345,265 Oct. 3, 1967
(Grodberg)
The design claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a),
(b) and (e) as being anticipated by Grodberg.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding the § 102 rejection, we
make reference to the examiner's first Office action (Paper No.
2, mailed January 29, 1996) and the examiner's answer (Paper No.
7, mailed March 17, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to the appellant's brief (Paper
No. 6, filed November 17, 1996) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007