Appeal No. 98-2105
Application 29/052,205
Furthermore, it appears that the examiner has improperly
treated this design case as if it were an application for a
mechanical utility patent, looking upon appellant’s design as a
?combination of old elements? and citing In re Antle , which 3
involves a utility patent application. However, the issue here is
whether appellant’s claimed design would have been obvious from a
design standpoint, not from a utility standpoint. Cho, 813 F.2d
at 382, 1 USPQ2d at 1664.
In view of the foregoing, we cannot agree that the examiner
has made out a prima facie case of obviousness. His decision
rejecting the appealed claim is therefore reversed.
REVERSED
)
HARRISON E. McCANDLISH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
3 444 F.2d 1168, 170 USPQ 285 (CCPA 1971).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007