Appeal No. 98-2069
Application No. 29/052,369
(Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1992) (merits panel of Board cites cases
involving utility applications in support of new § 112, second
paragraph, rejection of appealed design claim containing the
phrase "or similar structure").
In the present instance, the appellant's disclosure
consists of seven drawing figures illustrating a single
embodiment of an ornamental design for an audio signal
processing unit, and a specification containing a brief
narrative description of the actual article embodying the
design and a description of the relationship of the drawing
figures to one another. In the present case, we find no
standard or guideline whatsoever in the appellant's disclosure
to aid the designer of ordinary skill who designs audio signal
processing units in determining to what extent a particular
ornamental design for an audio signal processing unit may
depart from that which is disclosed by the appellant and yet
be regarded as "substantially as shown and described."
Furthermore, it is our determination that there are no
guidelines that would be implicit to the designer defining the
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007