Appeal No. 96-4010
Application 29/021,122
1992) made in appellant's parent application Ser. No. 07/990,789,
we view these papers collectively as demonstrating, from the time
of earliest filing by applicant, that he had in mind
considerations of both the design and function of the shield, and
of the ornamentality and attractiveness of the corn saver shield
and the corn header on which it was intended to be used. In the
face of the evidence supplied by appellant, the examiner has
provided no evidence or reasoning to support her conclusion that
the claimed design is "devoid of ornamentality" or that potential
purchasers and users of the claimed article "would not select it
on the basis of any consideration other than utility" (answer,
pages 2-3).
It follows from the above considerations that we view
the present design as not being dictated by function alone
and thereby to be proper subject matter for protection under
35 U.S.C. § 171.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007