Appeal No. 95-3852
Application 07/885,945
The ornamental design for a SHUTTER FOR AN OPTICAL DISC
CARTRIDGE as shown and described.
The examiner has relied upon the following reference:
Shiba et al. (Shiba) 5,195,084 Mar. 16, 1993
(filed May 14, 1991)
The design claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Shiba alone. 2
We refer to the briefs and the answers for the respective
positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
Having considered the obviousness issue raised in this
appeal in light of the teachings of the applied prior art and in
light of the examiner’s remarks and appellant’s arguments, it is
our conclusion that the examiner’s rejection of the present
design claim must be reversed.
“In determining the patentability of a design, it is the
overall appearance, the visual effect as a whole of the design,
which must be taken into consideration.” See In re Rosen, 673
F.2d 388, 390, 213 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1982). Where the inquiry
2The supplemental examiner’s answer indicates the examiner
has withdrawn a provisional obviousness-type double patenting
rejection set forth in the initial answer with respect to co-
pending application Serial No. 07/855,948, filed March 23, 1992,
the subject of previous Appeal No. 95-3046 decided on March 14,
1997. The examiner withdrew this rejection due to appellant’s
submission of a terminal disclaimer.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007