Appeal No. 95-4735
Application 07/826,171
[i]n the present design one gets a distinctively different feeling when looking at the
bottom of the pan of this design with its long outer lines taking right angle turns and getting
smaller and smaller in size with the lines parallel to the pan ends being shorter than the lines
parallel to the side of the pan.
No such feeling is obtained by viewing of the art cited alone or even if combined.
Accordingly, where the determination of obviousness is so subjective, the artistic
impression (i.e. how one perceives the end result) is all important.
After careful consideration of the issues raised in this appeal and with the arguments of both the
appellants and the examiner, we find that the rejection of the claim based upon EKCO, Finley and Young
is not well founded and will not be sustained.
We do not consider ECKO as a Rosen reference. The pan shown in the ECKO reference does
not reveal that the bottom surface of the pan has any groove or ornamental design therein. Even if we were
to agree with the examiner that ECKO is a Rosen reference, we cannot agree that the visual appearance
of the groove or indentation in the appellants’ design is suggested by Finley as the examiner contends.
While Finley conceptially shows a groove in the bottom surface of a pan which extends from the interior
thereof outwardly in spaced convolutions of ever increasing size that conform in shape to the pan’s outer
periphery, the resulting configuration of the convolutions is a spiral. Such a configuration presents a
significantly different appearance than the rectanguarly shaped convolutions on the bottom surface of the
claimed design. In our view, the examiner has
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007