Appeal No. 98-0068
Application 29/030,090
The design claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as being anticipated by the Autocar & Motor reference.
As stated by the examiner (Paper No. 5; page 2, paragraph 5):
Despite the presence of minor differences,
the automobile shown in the Autocar & Motor
article is seen as of substantially the
same appearance as the claimed design in
the eyes of the ordinary viewer, thus
precluding patentability.
The full text of the examiner's response to the
argument presented by appellant appears in the answer (Paper No.
16), while the complete statement of appellant’s argument can be
found in the brief (Paper No. 12).
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the anticipation issue
raised in this appeal, this panel of the board has carefully
considered appellant’s specification, Figures 1 through 7, and
design claim, the design shown in the applied reference, and
the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As
a consequence of our review, we make the determination which
follows.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007