Appeal No. 98-2069
Application No. 29/052,369
patent is a precedent of much moment."); Ex parte Tayama, 24
USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1992) (prior issuance
of patents for designs referred to as icons has no significant
precedential value in evaluating compliance with 35 U.S.C. §
171). Compliance with §§ 112 and 171 requires analysis of the
statutes and interpretation of case law. Mere reference to
possibly contrary decisions of an examiner in other
applications, applications in which the issue raised here was
not even addressed, are not helpful in this analysis.
Furthermore, it is debatable whether or not this data
establishes that for which it is cited. In any event, the
appellant does not contend, and it is not apparent to us, that
these design patents and utility patents constitute evidence
establishing that a designer of ordinary skill in the relevant
art would understand the metes and bounds of the appellant's
design claim when read in light of the appellant's
specification.
On page 6 of the brief and pages 1-2 of the reply brief,
the appellant cites Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White, 81 U.S. (14
Wall) 511, 528 (1872) for the proposition that "the settled
26
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007