Appeal No. 98-0494
Application No. 07/954,056
The design of the claimed pantyhose article at issue in this
appeal has two aspects. The first aspect of the claimed pantyhose
article is its appearance in an unstretched state as illustrated in
Figures 9 and 10. See Specification, p.2 ("Figure 9 is a front view
of a collant or pantyhose article design according to the invention .
. . Figure 10 is a front view of another embodiment of the design . .
. ."). The second aspect of the claimed pantyhose article is its
appearance in a stretched state as illustrated in Figures 1, 11 and
12. In this stretched state, the pantyhose article conforms to the
legs of the wearer and its shape is defined thereby. Therefore, in
order to render the overall appearance of the claimed pantyhose
article obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the combined teachings of
Harris and Fillmore must teach or suggest both aspects of the claimed
invention.
Although the examiner recognizes that there are two distinct
aspects of the claimed invention (see Answer, p.2), it appears that
the focus of the rejection at issue in this appeal is on the second
aspect of the invention, i.e., the appearance of the claimed
pantyhose article in its stretched state (Paper No. 4, p.4):
The basic reference to Harris shows pantyhose similar
in general, overall appearance to the claimed design; and
Fillmore is cited for the disclosure of an analogous
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007