Appeal No. 96-2905
Application No. 29/008,076
Third, the appellant argues that we overlooked or
misapprehended that the PTO is acting arbitrarily and
capriciously to deprive the appellant of a property right
without due process of law in granting design patents to
others in "the ornamental design . . . substantially as shown
and described" while denying such protection to the
appellants.
We respectfully disagree with the appellant on this
point. In our view, the PTO in the present case has advanced
convincing reasoning in support of its position which has not
been rebutted by the appellants. Under these circumstances,
the PTO cannot be said to be acting arbitrarily and
capriciously in refusing to grant the appellant a patent.
Further, and as stated above, to the extent any error has been
made in the rejection or issuance of claims in a particular
application, the PTO and its examiners are not bound to repeat
that error in subsequent applications.
Fourth, the appellant contends that we overlooked or
misapprehended the impropriety of an MPEP ruling based on
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007