Appeal No. 1999-0611 Page 10
Application No. 08/814,272
on the Lewis door panels would have been obvious "so as to
improve
aesthetics" (final rejection, page 3). We agree with the
examiner.
Initially, we note that a change in the shape of the
upper member of the frame of the garage door in this case is
merely an ornamental or aesthetic design consideration having
no mechanical function or consequence whatever and thus cannot
be relied upon for patentability of a claim in an application
for patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See In re Seid, 161 F.2d
229, 231, 73 USPQ 431, 433 (CCPA 1947). Moreover, although
Lewis does not illustrate any patterns on the overhead door
designs shown in Figures 5D and 5E having arched
configurations, Lewis does teach (see Figures 6A through 6C)
the use of patterns having arched configurations. Further,
Lewis suggests (column 1, lines 37 to 55 and column 2, lines
61 to 65) mixing, matching and flipping door panels provided
with different design patterns to provide the garage doors
with different aesthetic looks. In view of the teachings of
Lewis, it would have been obvious to provide the top panel of
the garage door shown in Figure 5D or Figure 5E with a panel
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007