Appeal No. 96-4010
Application 29/021,122
Like the examiner, we recognize that 35 U.S.C. § 171
permits a design patent to be granted for a "new, original and
ornamental design for an article of manufacture." In this
regard, the U.S. Supreme Court has noted that
[t]o qualify for protection, a design must
present an aesthetically pleasing appear-
ance that is not dictated by function alone,
and must satisfy the other criteria of
patentability.
See Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S.
141, 148, 9 USPQ2d 1847, 1851 (1989).
In In re Carletti, 328 F.2d 1020, 1022, 140 USPQ 653,
654 (CCPA 1964), the Court observed, in affirming the refusal of
a patent on a design for an article, the configuration of which
was determined to be the "result of functional considerations
only," that
[m]any well-constructed articles of
manufacture whose configurations are dictated
solely by function are pleasing to look upon
. . . . But it has long been settled that
when a con- figuration is the result of
functional considerations only, the resulting
design is not patentable as an ornamental
design for the simple reason that it is not
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007