Appeal No. 96-4010
Application 29/021,122
"ornamental" -- was not created for the
purpose of ornamenting.
In other words, the design of a useful article is deemed to be
functional or "primarily functional" when the appearance of the2
claimed design is inevitably dictated by the use or purpose of
the article.
Our present Court of review has further spoken to the
issue of ornamentality versus functionality on several occasions,
noting in L.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117,
1123, 25 USPQ2d 1913, 1917 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S.
908 (1993) that
[i]n determining whether a design is
primarily functional or primarily ornamental
the claimed design is viewed in its entirety,
for the ultimate question is not the
functional or decorative aspect of each
separate feature, but the overall appearance
of the article, in determining whether the
claimed design is dictated by the utilitarian
purpose of the article.
2See Power Controls Corp. v. Hybrinetics, Inc., 806 F.2d
234, 238, 231 USPQ 774, 777 (Fed Cir. 1986).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007