Appeal No. 96-4010
Application 29/021,122
[t]he instant article is believed to be
devoid of ornamentality, as comprehended by
the statutes. Articles of this type would
seem to be devised to satisfy purely struc-
tural and mechanical requirements as well.
No concern for ornamental value may be
ascribed to its functional features. A
potential purchaser and user of the claimed
article would not select it on the basis of
any consideration other than utility (answer,
pages 2-3).
Reference is made to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 15, mailed June 11, 1996) for the examiner's full reasoning
in support of the above-noted rejection. Attention is directed
to appellant's brief (Paper No. 14, filed March 28, 1996) for an
exposition of appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Having carefully considered the issue raised in this
appeal 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 under 35 U.S.C. § 171 cannot be
sustained. Our reasons for this determination follow.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007