Appeal No. 2000-0224 Page 2
Application No. 29/081,424
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims are:
Stokes 1,420,886 Jun. 27, 1922
Richards 3,139,628 Jul. 7, 1964
The following rejection stands before us for review.2
The appealed claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
the lift pipe 31 of Stokes in view of the pipe elbow piece 12 of Richards.
The examiner's rationale for the rejection appears on page 3 of the answer (Paper No.
10) and reads as follows:
The overall appearance of Appellant's claimed design is substantially
disclosed by Stokes 31, except for a difference in the length and termination of
the short extension.
Richards 12 shows a similar short length and termination on a pipe like
that of the claimed design.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to have fashioned the pipe of Stokes to have a short
extension with a straight cut termination on one end of the elbow as taught by
Richards. To do so would result in an appearance over which the claimed
article bears no unobvious ornamental differences.
In response to this rejection, the appellant argues that neither Stokes nor Richards
discloses a liquid and sediment collector having design characteristics that are basically the same
2The examiner's rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 171 as not meeting the requirements of
ornamentality has been withdrawn (see advisory action, Paper No. 7) in view of the appellant's response and affidavit
filed April 5, 1999 (Paper No. 6).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007